Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the September 29th Budget and Finance Meeting. It is two past one. First up on our agenda today is our normal review and discussion of fiscal year 2010 financials. Bill O'Mara and Mary Pfister are here to present us our current numbers. Welcome, Mr. O'Mara. I hope you bring good news and tidings to our financial situation. I always try to. Very good. Hello again. Here we go again. I've tried to keep things as boring as possible and followed the same format as the past few months. So, darn, I was hoping it would show up a little bit better. Okay, this is unemployment, and we are tracking unemployment for the state of Kentucky, which is the hardest number to see up here on the yellow, which is the highest number. Then we see the USA as a whole. Then below that is the Fayette-Lexington metropolitan area. And then the lowest one is the month of the Fayette County. So the great news is we have the lowest unemployment rate of anything that's on this map. And actually we have the lowest unemployment rate in the state of Kentucky. The other side of the coin is it's still way up higher than it was a year ago. So we are not unlike the trend both nationally and state. Unemployment is higher this year than last year. The, quote, good news is it's not as severe as in other areas of the country or the state. Actually, I think I have this through July, and I believe this weekend, the month of August, came out. And I think the unemployment in Fayette County is still the lowest in the state. And I'm a little confused because they said it raised in all 20 counties, but the number I saw is the same as what I reported for July. So I've got a bit of a discrepancy between July and August, Fayette County unemployment numbers. But the graph here is what was available last Thursday, which is through July. Next, we try to look at building permits, trying to see if that will be a leading indicator. and it can't be easy because this is the current year and it's kind of spiked up ahead of last of comparable years in June July it's now spiked below you see there is some seasonality in those permits so we'll just have to wait and see how those come out as as the fourth quarter of calendar 2009 play out. Bill, repeat that again. So we're down right now for the month of August? For the month of July, let me make sure I have, yes, for August. August is this number right here. This is tracking 2009 by the month. In July, we were above prior years. Now we're down, slightly down below the past two years for the month of August. So of the top four revenue streams for the urban county government for the month of August, the first one is an oh my gosh until you remember in July. The withholdings were $15.8 million in August of 2009, and that compares to $17 million in August of 2008. That's down $1.2 million. But if you remember, we had a spike up for the July over July, and we said that that was a timing difference that would show up in August, and that's the explanation there. The net profits is $402,000 against $736,000 last year. One of the things we were looking for seems to have occurred in August. There were more refunds paid out of August revenues in 2009 than the same period, August 2008, and that suppressed the results for August 2009 in the net profit. Insurance is very close. It's within $130,000 of the same time last year. And franchise fees are slightly below, but again, that is partially to when the state payment is recorded. So franchise fees are pretty much flat if you take that into consideration. If you look at the two months into the fiscal year, this is the year to date. And you see on the first line where the timing difference between July and August receipts for withholdings kind of washes it out. July and August total for occupational withholdings is $24.7 million, and that's compared to the two months ending August of 2008 of 24.3. That's a positive $451,000 and 1.86 percent higher than the same two months last year. The net profits are down $300,000, insurance is down $250,000, and franchise fees are virtually flat. We have attempted to come up with monthly budgeting. Mary Pfister and the budget staff have taken a stab at both expense and revenue budgets on a monthly basis. We have traditionally managed to year total budgets only, and so I think this is a three-year average of trying to budget the total to individual months. If you compare to our budgeted revenue for the first two months, it's 1.1% less for the total of those four. Just graphically to show you how each month builds up, you can see that we're very close to the same as last year after two months into the year for payroll withholdings. If you look at the month-to-month over the past two years, you can see that this double line, the reason it's so bold is that both two years ago and this year are virtually parallel. So it's kind of a double line there showing the two years. Help me with my color blind. The light purple kind of-ish color is last year. This darker color is two years ago, and then this blue is current year. So we're basically seasonality. It's the same. July is a low month. August is a high month. We're about on par to tracking with 07. This is the Lane report of the presentation. Council Member Lane asked me to look at calendar trends since there were some significant economic events in the fourth quarter of 2009. So if you look at the calendar to date rather than fiscal to date, so this is the eight months ending January through August of 2008 versus the eight months ending August 2009, we are 0.6% down for that calendar year-to-date over calendar year-to-date for January through August withholdings. Yes, sir. Question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Just curious to taxi back to the original request inquiry by Council Member Lane. Ed, was that to sort of get our arms around when the deepest hit from the economy was occurring in January? Is that what the objective was? The reason that I requested this is because the revenues for the first six months of the fiscal year, I guess that would be for the 2009 fiscal year. We're actually ahead of the year before, whereas the last part of the year was down, if I'm not mistaken. So this was to show the trend line that our revenues are, you know, declining slightly as opposed to going up for the year. Thank you. Moving to net profit, this is the visual tracking. And again, you can see that the two months ending July and August are not major contributors to the total of the year. So I hesitate drawing a trend line based on July and August net profits for a 12-month ending. This is the same visual with the three years month over month for you to compare. And then the calendar year to date, the eight months ending January through August of 08 compared to eight months ending January through August of 09. And for a calendar year-to-date, that would be net profits are down 13.6%. Next is insurance premium tax. And even though year-to-date we're down $250,000, Again, visually, you can see that this is early in the year and that it's not a significant variance at this point. And with franchise fees, we're virtually flat with the same period last year. And we do have rate increases in the utility business, but we don't have any control over the weather. And so the more moderate the weather, the lower the usage, the more severe the weather, the higher the usage. And that's something we'll have to read the Farmer's Almanac and see how it comes out. Questions? Any committee member have questions, please just log in on the system. Mr. O'Mara, our current month revenue report. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Bill, can you give us any update on expenditures? I know this is all about revenues. We actually have that next. Okay. Good. We'll wait then. Okay. Any questions on our revenues? Anything at all? Okay. You want to proceed? Thank you very much. Okay. Next is a year-to-date report on revenues. And we have two formats that were distributed prior. I did not put them up on a visual because they're spreadsheets, and no one would have been able to read them up there. But the two formats that we have sent out to you, the first one is a month-by-month, so that you can see seasonality. It lists the 12 months across the top of the page and then has multiple comparisons depending on major components. We show year-to-date actual compared to year-to-date budget, and then prior year-to-date actual. We then show in each category the monthly actual to the monthly budget to the prior year monthly actual. So there's multiple categories to compare to. The next format is a little easier to read. and actually gives you more expanded, detailed information. And this is a format that I'm wanting to introduce to you and hopefully we can become familiar with, both for the council as well as for commissioners and division directors to use to manage their areas. The first column is the current year-to-date compared to the prior year-to-date with a variance dollars as well as percent, and in the expense side there would be then encumbrances. The second section is showing the annual budget and the remaining budget and the percent of budget that has been consumed at this point. Because we are just now entering into the monthly budget and we have just made our first pass, we thought that both management-wise and history-wise, as managing to the total budget and the percent completed was what we had the most experience with. What I would like to grow into is a section in between those two that shows you the current year-to-date compared to this monthly budget. And so we hope that next year when we have a monthly budget under our belts, we can expand this report to have that as well. This report gives you the major components of the revenues, which we just went over the big four, but if you turn to the second page, it then tells you by operating unit expenses by major category. So you have the personnel category, the operating category, and then the debt service and capital. So the overall view of this is that at the end of August, two months into the year, total revenue is about $990,000 less than the same period last year, and total operating is also about $900,000 less than expenses last year. So bad news is revenue is down. Good news is we're controlling costs two years into the year. And I would point out to you that we are ahead in expenses even with the unfavorable debt service payment. We have the first pension bond payment that has been made. If you look on the third page at the top, it says debt service, principal and interest. It's about $2.6 million against only $400,000 year-to-date last year. So we have taken on that additional debt, which was budgeted, and yet even with that, total expenses are less than last year. Hopefully this is useful information. And are you going to wait and do the general fund and audited next? Okay. Customer James. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Mr. Mayor, in our packet, what's page 16, which is the first sheet of the general fund expenditures, Can you go into a little bit more detail about personnel expenses listed there for July and August and explain a little bit of the difference between the actual and the budgeted and how we, you know, what makes up, is it because of not hiring, or are we trying to keep a certain balance there? Like, what's, just explain those numbers and how there's a difference, there's a variance of, say, 1,113,000 under the August 09. What makes up for that? Thank you. hired were determined by each commissioner as the key ones to put the efforts in there first. Those are the ones that are going through the personnel process now, interviews, panels, offers, that type of thing. Then we will roll down from an A1 list to the A2 list, work on those, and then we'll roll down and see if we fiscally can go beyond that, beyond that given the results of the year. So this shows a slow but focused hiring of budgeted open positions in the first two months of the year. Okay. Thank you for that explanation. And so with that, that will never, that budgeted amount with the budgeted personnel, Unless we increase the number of personnel that we expect to hire, we will, going along this trend, always have more money budgeted for that than we will be able to fulfill by actuals. Is that valid? Almost. Okay. Let me say it a different way because there's another nuance in there. We have one number that is total approved budgeted positions, $190-some-odd million for FY 2010. We know that we can't have 100% staffing 365 days a year. So part of our budgeting process, which is in the proposed and the approved, is $5.9 million out of that total is anticipated to be the difference between if we had everybody here every single day of the year to what we will actually experience in paychecks going out the door for FY10. And the $191 million that is in the approved budget is the difference between the 100% funded everybody less the 5.9 equals the 191. That's compared, that's to budget. The number I think that you're looking at, I don't know if it's compared to budget or if it's compared, the 1.1 is compared to budget for August? Yes, year-to-date, actual year-to-date budget. Right. Right. So we're running ahead of where we thought that 5.9 would be when we tried our first guess at monthly budgeting of when those dollars would occur. Okay. Okay, it's going to take me a minute to absorb that, but thank you. I tried. No, that's helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Stanton. Any other Council members have any other questions on expenditure report? Bill, I do have one question. Looking at total expenses year to date, it looks like we're down $2.791 million. And that's on page 16. Total operating, yes, sir. But if you look on page 19, it has total expenditures down only $964,000 compared to the prior year. What's the difference there? The difference is that debt service. If you look over here onto the right on that second page, we incurred $2.6 million in debt service against only $400,000 in last year. So that ate up part of that $2.7 million favorable variance. Okay. So I thought we included the debt service on page 16 under total expenses. It says capital transfers and debt service there. Well, two different reports, two formats. On this page, that's correct. On this detail page, we were breaking things out into more detail, and so we showed operating, and then we broke out debt service separately. But in total, I think they tied. Mary and I tried to make sure of that. Okay. It just looks like we're adding up debt service, capital, and operating personnel. And obviously, given the detail, it still looks like they should match under the final total expenditure number. It should be the same. I thought they did. I mean, one that shows $32,485,000 and the other $32,825,000. So we will go back and check because it does say debt service and the number of times without debt service. That's your point, correct? Yes. Okay. My apologies. No, no problem. Vice Mayor Gray. Can you give us the detail on the debt service, the difference, again, Bill? Is that most of it for the bond for the fire and police? Is that where it's coming from? Yes, sir. We issued our first of a series of police and fire pension bonds, and the first payment on that issue that was issued in March, I believe, was paid and shows up in the actuals for the results through August. So that represents interest for or interest on that principal only or interest in principal reduction? I'll have to look. This time it's interest only. The next payment has interest in principal. I'm really more curious about how it relates to the prediction that it would be, at the end of the day, it would be expense neutral based on our previous contribution, right? because we've been putting in. It's expense neutral in that you either pay it in debt service or you increase your operating personal costs. Right, yeah. So it's a matter of where we show it. Yeah, and we've been, what was the number? It seems like it was like $6 million, five or six that we put in last year. So the theme was or the hypothesis was that we would be, by bonding this amount, the $70 million, we would actually be saving in annual operating expenses. So I'm just trying to confirm that we are on that path. I think it's projected that our total cost would be less, because if you put in a fusion of $70 million, that compounds within the fund. Right. Versus if you put in small amounts each month, you won't get that compounding. I'm not sure in the first year there's a dollar-for-dollar savings. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I think it's just useful for us to be reminded of the strategy and where we are in actualizing on that strategy. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you. Just a follow-up, Bill, on the personnel expenses. could you provide this committee a list of the budgeted positions as far as those that were vacant and those that have been filled, things that will cause that number, known things that will cause that number to fluctuate over the next budget year? So through June 10, if you have an expectation of when things will be advertised, post it, that sort of thing, so we know so we can kind of look and get the same predictions that you would be able to get as far as where we are with personnel expenditures as we're looking moving forward. I will give you the information we have. Let me make sure your expectations are met. I have a tax analyst. I don't have it predicted to be filled in April of 2010. It is not that kind of budget. We budgeted it that across the government there would be 5.9 that was not filled. We didn't say which position wasn't going to be filled. Okay? I can give you total vacant positions at this point in time. I can tell you which ones are currently being worked. But I think I have to stop there. So the conversation that you would have had or that someone would have had with directors of what positions that came through the budget cycle that we discussed as a council and that during the budget links process and all that, we don't have, there's not any continued conversation with directors as far as, you know, yeah, we really need that position at this point to be filled. There's not like a list of when will it be posted, that sort of thing. Well, let me explain. We took all the vacancies that were budgeted. Well, they can't be vacant if they're not budgeted. Went and said, what is your top priority? They gave us their top priority. We're working those. Then we will go back and ask, what is your next priority? So we didn't tell them, stratify if you have 15 positions, put a one, two, three, all the way into who's 15. We just said, who do you need right now? We will work on those. Okay. I'll take that list for now. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Lane. Thanks, Chairman Stennett. Could you look at page 18? Because I want to sort of follow up with Vice Mayor's question on the police and fire personnel cost. And if you look in the second category under expenditures, you see the police, and they are $18,000 more for that reporting period, and the fire is $53,000 less. And normally that would be substantially increased because not only do we have automatic contract that raises their base compensation. plan, then you would have the higher amount for the pension fund contribution in there. So these numbers are fairly neutral and normally they would be escalating substantially year to year because of built-in increases. So the savings that we've generated in that area are the ones that are offsetting the debt service for the bond on the back page there. Is that correct? That's not correct. Okay. The contribution that was budgeted and made during FY09 did not include the additional contribution required to fund the unfunded pension liability. So we made just the minimum required contribution because we knew we were going to be doing the $70 million bond issue. Okay, well, maybe I didn't state that as eloquently as you did, but what you're saying is in your budget for this year, you didn't include the total amount that we paid last year. because we put the money into the pension fund. Is that correct? No. What I'm saying is last year's actuals did not include that additional contribution that would be required this year had we not done the bond issue. Okay. I see. So last year's personnel expense in police and fire, we paid the minimum contribution, I think it's 17%, instead of the higher contribution that we needed to pay to truly meet what we legally were obligated to pay, based on the actuarial report, not legally obligated, but based on the actuarial report, because we knew we were doing the $70 million bond issue. Okay. So it's more of a cost avoidance in personnel. You know, we would have had to pay the cost this year. It's whether it was up in the personnel expense or whether it's down in debt service. And so by doing the bond issue, we moved it from personnel down to debt service. Well, since you didn't have that expense in for last year, then how come these numbers are almost the same then? Well, when we've had some pay increases in our contracts with them. Well, I think that a lot of it has to do with the fact that police and fire have done a wonderful job, both of them, in managing their overtime budgets this year compared to last year. Both of them are down about $100,000 in overtime each, so $200,000 total in overtime when you compare July and August of this year to July and August of last year. and so I think that that overtime savings has gone to offset a lot of the additional cost for the increases due to the contract. Well, good. Well, I'm glad I asked that question. Thanks for clarifying that. Thank you. Any additional questions on the revenues and expenses report so far? So, Bill, let me clarify just so we're reading it right. All right. Total revenues year-to-date on page 18 are $38,044,000. Yes, sir. That's year-to-date. And total expenditures $32,485,000. And it looks like we have a net change in fund amounts of $5.2 million currently year-to-date, just for the first two months now. That's not? Yes. Okay. All right. You have the last part of your presentation? I do. This is on page 20, committee members. This is a first glimpse at unaudited FY08 fund balance. And I get lost, so I'm going to ask Mary to assist me in the presentation of this. I look at total fund balance and unrestricted fund balance, and those are the two bookends of this presentation, and there's a lot of accounting that has to go on in between the two, but I'll let her present this to you. Okay. This is just the general fund, Fund 1101, and it's based on, again, unaudited preliminary numbers, But we are anticipating this year that our total fund balance will go from $23,002,000 to $23,003,000. So we'll have an increase of $122,000 in total for all of our fund balance. Now we know that that fund balance is made up of four components. The first one is our undesignated, which is what we tend to focus on the most from a budget perspective. So you can see that in the beginning of the year, our undesignated fund balance was $3.6 million. We were required to make some contributions to the other fund balance categories during the year. but the three negative numbers displayed in the undesignated fund balance column relate to is the funding of the other fund balances. And then you can see that we are projecting our net revenues over expenses for the year's activities to be $122,000. So we basically broke even for the year. So our undesignated fund balance, we believe, will be about $2.7 million. If we move over to the next column, you'll see the reserve for the 27th payroll. We start basically a savings account for the 27th payroll that happens once every 13 years. And so this year we made an $807,000 contribution towards that savings account, if you will, to save up for the 27th payroll. And then you can see that we actually have these fund balances earning interest because we actually have this money set aside, parked in an investment account. So that earned $15,000 interest. So our reserve for that 27th payroll that's coming in the future has grown up to $2.1 million. The next column is the economic contingency. If you recall in the FY09 budget, we had forecasted that we might need to take a draw for the economic contingency, But since we did not take a draw under ordinance, it appeared that we needed to make these contributions to the Economic Contingency Fund for FY09. So you can see that we made the $50,000 contribution monthly, which totals to the $600,000 in the current year additions. We had that the economic contingency actually earned interest of $162,000. And then each year there's a calculation of the prior year undesignated fund balance. So if you recall the $3,006,000 that we started with as the undesignated fund balance, based on a detailed calculation, we put a percentage of that into the economic contingency by ordinance. So we added another 488 based on that. So our economic contingency fund balance is now $14.4 million. The last type of fund balance reserve we have is for encumbrances. And if you notice, in the beginning of the year we had 5.1 million, and we were actually able to reduce that to 4 million. That reduction is primarily due to the efforts in our purchasing department to monitor the purchase orders that are outstanding at year end. This number is made up of two components, the purchase orders that are outstanding as of year end and the grant match that we have promised to make for federal grants that we've accepted. So that kind of goes through the four categories of our fund balance for the general fund. But the good news is that we were able to maintain the total fund balance and make our contribution to the economic contingency and the reserve for the 27th payroll as required. Council Member James. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. And Mary, there's an asterisk on the net revenues over expenses. No explanation. Just because those are preliminary. They're unaudited. Okay. So they could change. Okay. And the 27th payroll, when did you say it would occur again? It happens every 13 years. I believe it. Did it just happen this past? It happened in 2007 or 2008, I believe. Yeah, 2007. So. And so the interest allocation, is that always reserved to go to that particular line item and can't be used elsewhere? Right. Okay. And one more time, the definition of the usage of the economic contingency for anybody new watching. The economic contingency, I did not bring that ordinance with me, but there is language in the ordinance that dictates when a draw can happen from the economic contingency. And basically, it takes a reduction, a significant reduction in your anticipated growth in the, I believe, all four of the major categories that Bill went through this morning for revenues. So technically, we could probably, based on the calculation, qualify for a draw. But the draw, the economic contingency is really meant for unforeseen events, catastrophes, things like that that's out of the ordinary, not to be used just to run the government from day to day. Okay. But it is defined by ordinance how that draw can be made. And based on that, you believe that we, our current condition, could. No, no, I did not say that. I said based on the calculation, mathematically, there is an amount that we, you know, that I think that our economic growth or the lack thereof could make us eligible for a draw mathematically, but I don't know that the events are there to support making the draw. Okay. Is that subjective or are the events defined? It's really, I think, up to the council. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Councilman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And if I recall, a withdrawal from the economic contingency requires a, is it a two-thirds vote? Yes. It's more than a majority. I wanted to ask about those funds, the $14,470,569 in the economic contingency fund. What kinds of things do we have for investments with that money? I don't necessarily want to know where, you know, with what firms it's invested, but how are we investing it? Those funds are all invested in secure investments as required by state law and by our local ordinances. So it's all in money market accounts that are secured by the federal government. So I think our earnings was like 1.2 percent. It has to low interest. Yes. That's kind of what I was wondering. And that, you said, is required by state? There's state statute that covers that, and I believe there's also a local ordinance. Okay. And would you mind going back just to double-check on when the 27th? Sure. I can email that out to you. Because I was thinking it was every 11 years. I was thinking I could be way off on that. But it seems to roll around more often than 13 years. But just could you let me know? Yeah, I will. Okay, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anybody else? I have a couple items I want to see if we can answer. One, under economic contingency, the prior year fund balance allocation, I thought it was just a flat 25% of what the prior year fund balance was. should be the payment made before we use it for anything else? Actually, it is you take your undesignated fund balance, you subtract from that any fund balance that was utilized in balancing the budget in the next year. So when we did the FY09 budget, we actually budgeted $1.4 million of that carry forward. And then you also do a calculation of capital reappropriations during the budget process, which ended up being about $235,000. So at the end of the day, we had $1.9 million of that $3.6 million that was subject to the 25% calculation. Okay, and then that $3.6 million used to be $4 million a couple months ago. What happened? Well, the $4 million number that when you look at, that is the total for all the funds that we call general fund. So this is just the 1101 fund. But in our CAFR, it would show a $4 million number, and that adds to it the donation fund, the family care center fund, and, you know, the tenant relocation fund that was created will be in there for 09. So there's numerous funds that go together for presentation purposes of the CAFR that make up the general fund. This is just one of those funds, the most major, the 1101 fund. So what are our plans going forward on the $2.7 million fund balance? Well, the hope would be that we would secure that and save it, because I think we may need it in either balancing this year's budget, depending on what ends up happening or perhaps in the 2011 budget process. Well, and I'm glad you said that because one thing I'm worried about in other council members, we've nickel and dimed away at some of that anyway and using it in previous fiscal years, like we had the $1.4 million utilized to balance the next budget, and we've put money against our fund balance as we go through small budget amendments, $50,000, $100,000, and it starts adding up. So I hope not to see any budget amendments come forward to utilize it. I think right now today it is at $2.1 million is what it's down to, based on what you guys have passed in the first two months of the year. I have the detail of that if you know. That's what I was getting to. It's not really $2.72 million. No, that's what it was as of June 30th. Right. So there has been. The inversions was $177,000. There was a small $390 budget amendment for District 11 Council capital. And then we used $560,000 of it in the adoptive budget. So current available fund balance is $2.1? $2.1, yes. That's what it is. Very good. I just want to make sure everybody understands it's not 2.7 out there, so when we're recording our numbers, it's actually 2.1. So as we see any new budget amendments come forward, it will dwindle that number down even further if people do take it from front balance. Right. Now, you all will be having a budget amendment on Thursday that is related to that encumbrance reserve column. And I don't know whether you recall that you already passed one that was for $2.4 million that was for the POs. and then you'll have one for the grant match portion of that encumbrance reserve column. I guess I should be pointing that way, the encumbrance reserve column, that you'll be passing tonight. But that in no way impacts the undesignated fund balance. It's the other budget amendments that are done that do. Councilor James, do you have another question? Yeah, no, I'll pose this to the chair and the rest of the committee. As we look at what we just talked about, about kind of eating away at that fund balance, we saw that $177,000 was for inversions. How can we take care of that on the front end so that we don't have to deal with it on the back end? I'd heard rumor that in previous years each division needed to budget for inversions, and I think a couple still do of the special funds. They account for that, but how do we, I think that's one thing that we can learn is, you know, if something's affecting having an actual number, you look at what's affecting that actual number and try to fix it ahead of time. So what should we be doing now, thinking about next year's budget, to be able to take care of that so that our actuals are actual versus chomping away at them so it's not seen as an end-of-the-road kind of thing and just kind of pose that to the committee as we think about our budget or should be thinking about our budget already. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Gordon. Well, with what Council Member James just said, do you know, Mr. Chair, when I know the issue of inversions is in budget and finance, do you know when it will be discussed? We can look at October or November if we need to do it sooner. We have a big meeting in October, but we can add to our agenda. I think the sooner the better. That way we can start looking at this, you know, whatever funds we have available to make sure we're taking care of all inversions necessary to get us on track. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Councillor Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I'm not a member of this committee, so I appreciate your patience with me. I just wanted to ask a question about the reserve for the 27th payroll. What we're doing there is contributing toward the next event. correct? And do we know what that number needs to be? I do not know what that number needs to be off the top of my head, but I can email that to you as soon as I get back to my office. And is that particular account set up by state statute or city ordinance? City ordinance. Thank you. If I'm not mistaken, that number was in the $20 million dollar range and up last time we had to do it. So pretty big number. Anyone else? Okay. Bill, Mary, thank you so much. Item two on our agenda is the business occupational license fee discussion. This has continued from last meeting. I wanted to give an opportunity if there's anyone in the public that wanted to address this committee on that issue. If there's anyone here that would like to come up and address that issue. Yes, sir. Come on up. Give us your name and address. My name is Steve Oshefsky, and I live at 220 Westwood Court. And I couldn't help but noticing on your page 24 of this agenda report, it talks about funding for public safety as the committee and the Division of Police and their payment. And I just wanted to bring to your attention what you might be aware of. We're having a lot of problems with parking, traffic, and litter, drunkenness-related crimes. in my neighborhood, and especially on game day. And we've been advised by the city council in the past and over this last little bit of time to try and work with the police about trying to alleviate the problems related to these kind of crimes. And what we are told many times by various different policemen and so forth like that at different levels like on the street and in the administrative offices is that they just don't have enough policemen. So, for instance, on game day. Is this for business occupational license fee? This is the public discussion. I'm sorry. I'm referring to. We're not there yet on the agenda. Oh, I'm so sorry. If you don't mind, if we can get through that public discussion on the business occupational license. I was going by the agenda, and I'm so sorry. No problem at all. I just didn't want to get to it when we get to it on item three. Is there anybody here in the public that wants to discuss the business occupational license fee? If there are none, Councilman James. Yeah, I just, I was not aware. I apologize, but I have several constituents that have sent emails and such when they got their bill the first go-around. Will this be the only opportunity for citizens to come to discuss this before we do any action? I don't know what's expected to occur today. You can keep it in committee as long as we need to. I'm open for that. We had had several people ask after last meeting if they could come speak, and I told them it would be on this agenda. I announced it last Tuesday as well. Okay. If there's anyone that wanted to get in contact, because we'd be glad to hear it at any budget and finance meeting. I'd be glad to entertain that. Okay. I'll be sure to put the request out, and it doesn't appear we have many people here to speak on it today. Please do. Okay. And while it's on our agenda, Pastor Laine, did you have a question? I was going to have Mr. O'Mara clarify again what this ordinance says and who should have been paying all along. on this ordinance, just so everyone's clear about it, that it's really nothing new except for the amount of the fee. Mr. Mayor, can you reiterate that so everyone understands what we're talking about in terms of that business occupational license and who should have been filing this all along? Sure. The two major occupational license fees, one is for employees who have a deduction from their payroll earnings. The other is the business occupational tax, which is a net profit on all business activity within Fayette County. So it has been on the books since the 1950s. It, like the state and federal income tax, is a voluntary reporting. We don't send out a bill. The IRS doesn't send you a bill. you are informed that you're supposed to file when you have activity, and you file April 15th if you're a calendar year person on your business activity, on your net profits. That's the same for this net profit license fee. When you file your federal return is when you are due to file to the urban county government. And it's always been in arrears so that if it's calendar year, you had business activity January through December. April 15th the following year, you made out your federal return. You then made out your state and your local return, mailed that in, showing what your activity was, and paid the occupational tax of 2.25% on any net profits. What we did was make a minimum license fee that would be due January 1st at the beginning of the year. And so if you were in business or intended to be in business in calendar year 2009, then by January 1st of 2009, a minimum net profit of $100 was due. We contacted all the people that had previously been paying, but anyone new would have that $100 minimum, then that following April 15th, when you made the filing for calendar year 2009, then you would see if you owed more than $100. If you owe more, you've already paid the $100, you would remit the difference. If you owed less, then you've already paid the minimum license fee due of $100. So, again, just to make it simple, we already had a business occupational license, It's just we attached a minimum amount to that license. That's correct. We've always had it, though. And people are still required, whether you sell one house in Lexington, umpire one baseball game, whatever it may be, if you engage in business in Fayette County, you should have that license. All business activity is subject. Councilman Lane was first. Mr. O'Meara, I was just going to ask a follow-up question. Could you, and you may not have this data with you, so I don't mean to put you on the spot, but could you give us a general idea how many people were licensed, say, before this change in ordinance came in, and how many are licensed now, and what impact that's had as far as paperwork and all that for the government? Right. Last year there were 27,700 business licenses. 11,900 of them paid no license fee to the urban county government at all. Since we've instituted this, we now have 26,400 active accounts, but 5,800 have come forward and said, we quit doing business with you a long time ago. Basically, please take us off your roll. So instead of looking and trying to audit and contact these people to file with us, they notified us that they were no longer in business in Fayette County. We've to date collected $1.9 million in the minimum license fee since January, and I guess that's the statistics I have. You say approximately how many people now have licenses? Did you give that number? 26,400 active accounts right now. Okay, so it's gone down about 1,300 since this came in, but more of the people are paying than previously. We purged 5,800, but we've had new accounts activated. So the net is we're down about 1,300. All right. Okay, and just my last question is people that are contractors, that are working on many of the projects like the sanitary sewer system, the storm sewers or the water pipelines or the airport or whatever, how do those contractors file in order that we collect the fees on that? Well, they come forward and register saying that they have activity in Fayette County. If they have employees, then they're on our rolls and withhold from their payroll. and then when they file their net profit or their tax return federal, then they also file a net profit return with us. Thank you, sir. Council Member James. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Mr. Mayor, how the last clause of this ordinance talks about that a business engaged without the license will be assessed a penalty, $25 each, in addition to the license fee. Are we finding many of those, and what's the process of how are those being found? How do those get to you to where you know that it's an illegal business? It's not an illegal business. It's an licensed business. Or that it's not a licensed business. Well, we have two license fee inspectors, and they go through incorporations. They go through advertisements. They actually drive around to see construction sites. They'll go to the general contractor, ask for a list of their subcontractors. We'll notify those people there through the mail or phone call. Our policy is education first, enforcement second. And so if you're not used to doing business locally in the state of Kentucky, Kentucky. This is somewhat unique throughout the 50 states. So if you are your first imprint in doing business in Kentucky locally, you may not be aware of it. So that's why we take the education first, enforcement second. Okay. And those two licensed folks are in your division specifically? Is it full-time? Full-time jobs? Yes. Great. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Mr. O'Meara, I'm really concerned with the $100 fee that it's causing a hardship on some folks, like newspaper carriers or umpires that are just trying to make an extra dollar and it's really eating up their profits or the money that they're making. Have you had many complaints or has your office? Many is a relative term. We have heard from taxpayers in Lexington. From my perspective, we were not inundated with phone calls, but we did get phone calls. And it kind of came in waves. A certain business segment found out about it, talked to their fellow workers, made some phone calls to find out whether it applied to them and how it worked. Then it kind of died down. Some other segment found out about it. We got a few phone calls from that business segment, and then it kind of died down. So it kind of came in small ways. I just know of a couple people that actually had some small paper routes, and they just gave it up because in the end of their – when they had to file their taxes, it really just wasn't worth it for them, although it was providing some additional income for their family. So I just wanted to voice my concern about it. Thank you. Councilman Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to clarify something that I thought I heard you say. I think the number was $11,100, paid no license fee. $11,900. Not paid no license fee. What does that mean? That means before we had a minimum, if you filed your tax return and you had a loss, then zero was due. Okay, so these are new businesses that have paid the fee, the $11,900. No, I'm sorry. I've created some confusion. Prior to January 2009, we had a total of 27,700 active business accounts on our rolls. Of those, 11,900 paid no net profit from the prior tax year. Okay. So with the beginning of this new requirement, though, they will now be paying the minimum tax. Minimum $100, yes. Thank you. Councilman McGray, Vice McGray. Could you go over that again, the numbers? Okay. Prior to January 2009, we had 27,700 active business license accounts registered in Fayette County. Of those, $11,900 filed what we call a zero return, no net profit fee due, because they had a tax loss on their return. Okay, so what we did with this fee was impose on anyone making any income at all a transaction fee, essentially. It's a minimum license fee of $100. Right. I'm like Council Member Henson. It hadn't been a bulldozer amount of people that have hollered about this, but there have been enough. And they have been the people, really small business people, people who are working out of their homes, or people who who are selling supplies at a beauty shop, those kinds of businesses. And I think the cost-benefit analysis on this is worthwhile for us, for sure, because I think what we want to avoid is a penalty on people who are, as Council Member Henson said, that are really trying to make just a few extra dollars. This is not amount of, I mean, if we were to give a $100 rebate, it's only going to occur after someone makes a business, that is, which is often a single, often a sole employee business. that rebate is only going to occur after the firm or company or sole employee business has made a net profit. So these folks like Peggy was describing, if they're paper carriers or if they're selling health supplies, they're not going to make more than maybe perhaps $3,000 or $4,000 or $5,000 even a year with these added benefit or these added businesses. So I guess I'm not sure I know or understand everything I know about this still and have to confess to it being after two years, I think that we really need to examine this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Catherine Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now, just to continue that thread before I ask my question, But now someone who makes over $100, that, well, someone who makes a profit, that $100 in fee gets deducted from what they would owe in taxes, correct? That's correct. It's a non-refundable fee. Right. But if they owed $184, they've already paid $100, they would remit on the April 15th the additional $84. Right. I had a rather specific question based on something you said. We don't go out looking for people. We rely on them to file their tax forms to be part of the system. So, and then based on another council member's question about contractors and people who come in and work, What happens with situations like the ice storm where lots of people from out of state worked in our community for many, many weeks? How does that, is that also strictly self-reporting? And so if the folks don't self-report, we miss that. Let me, if I could, clarify that it's not an absolute. What I said is the tax system is based on voluntary disclosure, like your income tax. You're expected to file your income tax, not wait for the U.S. government to send you a bill. So the expectation is for a self-reported tax. And one of the internationally amazing things about the U.S. tax system is we do it. And talking to people from the Patterson School, they're amazed at the voluntary compliance with a voluntary tax system. But like any system, there's human nature, and so we spend a lot of time trying to work and identify the tax gap, the difference between those people that do it voluntarily and those people that choose not to. So there are initiatives to find people who have not come forward and paid their taxes voluntarily. We have the two license fee inspectors. We have an information sharing agreement with the IRS looking at federal tax returns that are filed that we don't have. We have on the docket later today a contract with a recovery and discovery company to try to help us find those people who have not filed their taxes with us to maximize the amount that is already imposed on the community and as a fairness issue to those people that have come forward voluntarily and are paying their taxes. Well, I know one thing that happens with each ice storm. We have individual people who come through and work on cutting trees and that sort of thing. Then we have, like, utility companies from other states coming in and that sort of thing. I would think those folks who are part of the utility system would be easier to include them in the system. But the folks who are individuals who come knock on the front door and say, I can take your tree out for such amount of money, a lot of them I suspect are never identified. Would you? Well, let me say some are harder to find than others. Some are harder to find than others. Okay. Well, I was just curious. Thank you. Catherine James. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I think you said this, either this setting or another setting, that if, for example, a business comes in and is going through purchasing and they're bidding on a project, that part of the process is if they're an out-of-state company, they do have to get a business license before money is granted to them. Is that correct? If they are awarded the bid, in order to award the bid, they have to register with us. So we coordinate within our own purchasing department, yes. Okay. And one of the comments that I've received since we've implemented this ordinance is how does the business owner, how do they get something out of this? Like what do they get out of it? But usually if you pay the urban services fee, you get waste management services and the other services that go along with that. If you pay your payroll tax and it goes into our general fund we're allocating for city services, what does the business owner get out of paying this fee and where does the $100 go? I mean, you know, I know where it goes, but saying it to businesses. Take what you described for the payroll, and it's exactly the same for the net profit. It goes into the general fund and pays for the basic safety and infrastructure services that the general fund finances. Police, fire, traffic, traffic lights, parks. You don't have to live here in order to avail yourself of those. It's the infrastructure and the city itself that the general fund is funded. And that's where the money goes. Okay, keeping that in mind. And if you appropriately designate a particular business and their impact and how they pay based on their impact or something, I don't know. I'm just thinking like a person that is one of the smaller businesses that sells their products at beauty supply places, maybe doesn't have an office, but they travel for their business. So they're not necessarily impacting road because they have customers coming. Could there be, you know, like a tiered even for the minimum? I'm great with the amount of money that we brought in. 1.9 is a phenomenal amount, and I think it's great. I'm just trying to throw other options out there. I know we kind of did this and said we're going to do it, and we've heard some comments back that maybe there are some folks, as Council Member Henson mentioned, that maybe are being impacted. It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but maybe that was enough for them to say, I quit. I'm not going to do the newspaper delivery anymore because that's just too much. Is there any other option with the minimum license fee to even tier that based on what their net profits are? The only thing that I'm aware of is a gross receipts tax, which is a major shift in our total tax structure. It is in Kentucky and it is clustered in northern Kentucky, and they tier the application of it based on industry or volume. that is a major, major shift in the application of our taxing structure and would warrant a very large and thoughtful analysis before we wanted to go down that road or to discuss that. I'd like to, I mean, I think options are things we need to talk about, and I think we're here to be thoughtful. supposed to be. I mean, I'd just like to kind of open that up as just an option. I mean, I'd even be willing to just talk with you about it and look at the research that's there. And, you know, if it's something that we can format and bring at least as an option just to discuss, I think is something maybe we should consider. You know, all I keep thinking about is we do want to be favorable to businesses and local businesses, and especially small businesses, because we know that local small businesses are the sustainability path of our future. It's not going to be necessarily these huge businesses. So say these major companies shut down and we're depending on a percentage of whatever. They may pay a minimum license fee of one thing, but then we're waiting on the revenue of these large companies to come in. What about the local businesses? And if we look at that number increasing, we could end up getting more money from local business if we increase that local business, that bottom line or those numbers of those. I want to look at from the frame of mind that what if we only had local businesses and we needed them to support our budget? How could we make sure that we were getting the most, not lots of money, but having more to choose from or more of those local businesses to grasp the $100 minimum or $50 minimum or whatever it is? Maybe more people would start businesses if the license fee requirements were less. I don't know for sure, but I like to look at other angles and other options that are pro-small business that are also favorable to our bottom line of what we need to run our government. So let me know how I can help you with that, and I hope the committee will also look towards that. Thank you. Councilman Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I want to go back to that number again that I asked you about because this is really strange to me. 27,700 active businesses, and of those, 11,900 did not make a profit? Did not make a taxable profit. Okay. And what is a taxable profit? What amount becomes taxable? Well, you have cash flow of a business, you have financial statements, and then you have tax returns. All three can have a different bottom line. The tax code of the United States is thicker than I am tall, and depending on what industry and what lobbyist you had determines what type of deductions you can take against your revenue, which decreases your profit, which decreases your tax liability. Okay. What I'm saying is that of the 27,700, 11,900 of them qualified in their tax code to take more tax deductions than they had revenue. Okay. That's over 40 percent? 43 percent. Okay. That's just kind of unusual, I think. Well, depreciation, there's all kinds of tax code deductions that you might qualify for depending on the industry and the type of business that you're in. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Any motions or anything else on this issue today? We'll keep it in the committee, and as we have additional thoughts and want to hear additional public comment, we'll keep it in committee for a while. Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. Last on our agenda today is the list of recommendations from the council links. If everyone would turn to page 23, this list was composed back during the budget process to allow the chairs of each council link to kind of follow up with this committee. The progress is made from some of the things we found out during the budget process and those specific areas that correspond with the budget link process. So if there's any chairs have any updates that are here today, I know we do in public safety, and I'll speak on behalf of Council Member Crosby, but before I do, is there any other chairs that have any updates to give to this committee about their recommendations and anything they're working on from these recommendations? Council Member James. Well, I know under Public Works and Environmental Quality, sorry, it's been a while since I looked at this. I'm trying to refresh my memory. Well, I think we've had that Urban Services Fund thing. We have. And the list of ordinances and laws, I do have something that I got from Elizabeth. The bigger issue with that, and I'll ask the committee how we proceed, But the biggest issue with that on item C is that when we are going through the budget process, the similar to like at the very beginning from the mayor looking at what he wants to allocate and then coming down to us is we need to be referring to those ordinances and laws the entire time. They have to be referenced because what has happened in the past is that we get this budget in our hand And then we go, oops, nobody considered world at work. Or, oops, the contingency has to be worked in there. You know, so I think that we have that, just having the list as part of it, now implementing it into the entire budget process is what I need everybody's help to try to figure out. How do we do that? Is there a checklist that goes through the links that says, you know, have you referred to this, or this is the ordinance that relates to it, that sort of thing. So that's the only thing that I would say is once we, you know, is I just need your guidance on how we implement that. Okay. Any comments? Councilman James, Councilman Gordon. Yes, I had one response to that. We ran into that. On the link, there was a problem during the council work on the budget, And I think that whatever is done, we need to have the list before we start working on the budget so that someone has gone through maybe its budgeting and checked that list to be sure everything's in there. I don't remember what it was that was left out last year, but it was just, you know, an item that by law had to be in there and wasn't. And if we could get it soon after, you know, say March, if we can have it by March when we start or whenever the links start, it would be very helpful as a reference back. So I don't know if you're working it through InterGov or if it can just be brought to us. I mean, you all know budgeting knows what the items are, I think, or do you? Would it work if we put as part of our process to have each ordinance addressed as, you know, after the mayor does his mayor's proposed budget, we could provide for you, you know, a checklist of how they're addressed and if they're addressed or not addressed and if they're not, why, and if they are, how? Yeah, I think that would help. Actually, I had asked for that like two years ago. And it's similar to the consent decree indication in our packets is when we know that something has to be done because it's by that consent decree or by this ordinance. That is extremely helpful when we're making our decisions because it kind of takes out the optional thing. We can do that. Thanks. And then also, Mary, can we also include it maybe in our budget book, the big thick one, and put under a funding line item the ordinance number that refers to that funding item under details or somewhere? That way it's a permanent record and we can see it. And also I think the important thing, Council Member James and Gordon, is the dollar amount associated with that ordinance, how much it's going to cost to comply with that ordinance. Okay. Not just list the ordinance, but I think that's. We can do that. Thank you. General Services. Councilman Lane, are you having updates from the General Service link? Mr. Chairman, I do not. But what I will do, I will plan to talk to Commissioner Cole and see if we get an update for our next meeting. I know we did add item C. That job was authorized, the deputy director. We've already done that. Right. Some of those positions may be filled. It seemed like they interviewed and maybe they offered a job, but they didn't get filled. So I need to get an update on that, too. That's in progress. Okay, thank you. Let's see. Flipping to the next page, finance, budgeting, social service, asset agency. Peggy, is there anything there that needs to be updated under your link? Any updates at all? No, I actually probably should follow up with that to find out where that is. Okay. That's fine. We can report out next meeting. Under public safety, I know we've had two updates. One, Division of Police have proceeded with three of the six radar trailer purchases. So hopefully they're on order and that they should be coming down the system pretty soon. And hopefully by spring they'll be able to get the other three in their budget from their accounts. Then also, as you know, today we will have a presentation on item three, the police radio. It will be a presentation today at work session. Council Member Blues, any updates on the general government? Anybody else have any updates on the budget link process? Okay, do we have public comment on our budget link? Welcome. Sorry about that again. We appreciate you sticking with us. That was my mistake, and I appreciate you being so gracious about it. My name is Steve Olszewski, for the record, at my address, 220 Westwood Court. I want to suggest in this public safety list of recommendations, we just heard that three of the six authorized or three of the six suggested, I suppose, radar trailers. I'm guessing that's for measuring speeding. What I was told by the police is that the same policemen who check for speeding are the same ones who check for parking. So they can't do both. Either they check for people speeding. And that number is, depending on the time of day, because there's different shifts, 18 to 24 for the entire Fayette County area. So we have basically between 18 and 24 patrol vehicles or patrol police officers available for all of this square footage, all this miles of street. And quite frankly, I'm not suggesting that we should ignore people who speed, but the priority which you have come forward with in saying we want to have more radar detection of speeding, I guess, what you're inadvertently doing is saying we want to have less monitoring of parking problems. We have serious parking problems out of control, and when we try and talk to the police about them, they tell us we don't have the resources, that is to say they don't have the labor available, they don't have the budget, they don't have the authorization to hire people. And so I was a little bit shocked when I read then in number two, it says, if this and that, then discussion needs to be held regarding the... And I think I share the frustration with a lot of other people that it's not just me, but when city council wants to look into something and determine if that's the case, then maybe we should have a discussion that might end up with a committee formation or you know what I'm saying, and before I die maybe, something might be done. Well, no, because by that time you will have moved on to better jobs and someone else will be here and they'll start all over. And we've been going through a lot of that. So I want to suggest to you that rather than have a discussion, that you recognize immediately that there's a financial need for paying police officers to do their job, which is a job that you all have said you wanted done, and we all want this job done. So will the money come forward out of the budget, I hope? Thanks. Thank you. Let me just suggest a couple items. One, on the police radar trailers, actually not a human being. And there are actually speed trailers like you see along the interstates, and these actually measure technology-wise speeding in the neighborhood without an officer being there. So they're much cheaper than an officer than having to sit there. And they're much more efficient. They can record every speed. So that's what we're working on there. And then on the number of police officers in the budget, we had a lot of discussion about the fire department finding ways to curb their overtime. Well, the police had an opportunity through the stimulus program to apply for additional officers through the COPS grants. Unfortunately, between now and then, back in June, that we made this recommendation, we have been denied additional officers through the stimulus program. So it's up to this body and administration to look at ways hiring additional officers. And obviously that discussion is a financial considerations, and that's what we're talking about discussion-wise. We currently have a police officer class in progress. It will help a little bit, but we weren't able to fulfill every officer we need in our current budget, and that's where that recommendation came from. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Steve, you live on Woodmont Court? Westwood Court. I knew it was close. I was there on Sunday and went down the street and saw some of the issues that you're describing and have been describing so well and routinely and relentlessly, and that's a good thing. Too bad Council Member Lawless isn't here. You're a council member. Because I think what it illustrates to us, and we recognize what you're describing in terms of the often interminableness of our activities or our examination and deliberations. But I think for me, anyway, it illustrates that all neighborhoods may have been created equal, but they all don't have the same needs today. And the needs in that area are severe and significant. But there's one good thing about it. You all are keeping the attention on this and the attention level up, and that tends to work in democratic processes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Any other comment on item three on our agenda? I have one closing item for Mr. O'Meara or Mary. Several items on our today's council work session, as well as has been mentioned in different various committees about our bond, bonding items that we've approved in previous budgets, specifically 08 and 09 that we have not bonded yet. I understand that list is close to $100 million. Could we have a presentation on items that we've approved through the budget that we have not yet bonded, that we need to bond or have to make a decision on whether or not to bond based on our current bonding capacity of $50 million or less so that we can, as a council, understand what decisions will be based on, especially today's presentation on the new radio system? We'll have a big impact on that discussion. So can we do that at a work session? So I think it's kind of urgent that we get that heard and all the council members understand what we've approved, we may not be able to fulfill at this point. Is that a hard list to discuss in next work session? Unless this committee wants to wait until budget and finance in October, I think we've got some critical decisions to make in the next couple weeks on some major bonding packages. So if we could have that list, what we've already approved again, that we haven't bonded, that we need to bond, that we can't bond because we don't have enough capacity. Does that make sense? I'm working on it right now. and what's being bonded. Yes. We know what we've already bonded. We got that list a couple meetings ago. If you can get that to us and maybe put on a work session next week or the week after, as soon as possible. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. That's the only last fit I had. Anybody else? Anything? Meeting adjourned. Do I have a motion? Motion. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. I am curious, heart and lips Felt my healing, finger tilt It burns like fire This morning desire I had spoke with eternal angels I had held the hand of a temple It was one of the nights I was gone as a stone But I still haven't found what I'm looking for But I still haven't found what I'm looking for I believe in the kingdom come And all the colors Lead into one Lead into one But yes, I'm still running To the broken bones and to lose the chains Carry the cross and all my shame All my shame You know I believe it But I still haven't found what I'm looking for But I still haven't found what I'm looking for But I still haven't found what I'm looking for For the still have gone What I love you for Oh, mama, I'm in fear for my life from the long arm of the law. Lawmen is putting into my running And I'm so far from my home Oh mama, I can hear you crying You're so scared and all alone Hangman is coming down from the gallows And I don't have very long If she gives up and uses out They finally found me Who's renegade, who hadn't made A street for a bounty And the more you go astray This will be the end today Of the one you met Oh mama, I've been given the life And a heart blast on my head Love and today and day of the light I wish for sure he'll see me in there Dear mama, I can hear you crying You're so scared and all alone Pain that is coming down from the gallows And I don't have good luck With tears of the news that I can finally find me The renegades who had it made The team wore a bowie Now the morning goes straight Just to have the best today I'm the one man guitar solo Oh, mama, I'm in fear for my life From the long arm of the law Rain Man is coming down from the gallows And I don't have very long It's in years and years and years and years They finally found me When they gave me had it made me Treat for a bounty Never more to go astray It'll be the end today I've ever wanted me The one in my head I don't know I'm out! I gave you love, you did me wrong I didn't know what to do But baby I'm strong Gonna get over you A new boy I'm gonna choose You'll see My love was true So you threw it all away Now the other guys who have me Will appreciate my love Tell me how do you feel You know that I needed you You know that you meant the world to me You know I had to have you Now I'm gonna find somebody new I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love Yeah, yeah, yeah I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love Yeah, yeah, yeah Was she hot? Did she turn you out? Curiosity rules my brain Was she worth my part? It's torn all apart Are you going back again? Tell me My love was true So you threw it all away But now you lack the rest Unworthy of my best Astorisa, baby You know that I needed you You know that you meant the world to me You know I had to have you Now I'm gonna find somebody new I'm looking for a new love, baby, a new love. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm looking for a new love, baby, a new love. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love Yeah, yeah, yeah I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love Yeah, yeah, yeah Other guys will have me They'll appreciate my love Tell me, how does it feel? Now you like the rest Unworthy of my best I still have this star, baby I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love I'm looking for a new love, baby A new love I'm looking for a new love, baby Oh My breath is cold, but the chills are about. The sun is a hard-winging day, but I can't get my pain. It's in a day more, oh, it's in a day more. All my time is hell going away. I've got my money in my honey. And I'm not gonna steal the place My Sunday morning, my heat is big Boy, you're waiting for the time that I've been But I've got to get my red Cause Monday's a mess I said a little more Oh, I said a little more All of my time is half gone away I've got my money And my honey And I'm out of family place On Sunday morning my head is back Point with it for the time that I made But I've got to look in my red Cause my little man It was a beautiful day Sun beat down I hit the radio wall I was driving Trees went back Me and Dale were singing A little runaway I was blind Yeah, running down a dream That never would come to me Working mystery Going wherever it leads Running down a dream I felt so good Like anything was possible Hit cruise control And rub my eyes The last three days The rain was unstoppable There was always cold No sunshine Yeah, running down a dream That never would come to me Working on the mystery Going where I'd lead Running down a dream guitar solo There's something good waiting down this road. I'm picking up whatever is mine. I'm running down a dream that never would come to me. Working on a mystery, going wherever it leads. Running down a dream. Yeah, I'm running down a dream It never would come to me Working on a history Born wherever it leads I'm running down a dream We'll be right back. We'll be right back. When the sun wakes up in the west And lays its head down in the east When they ordain Madeline O'Hare And she becomes a priest When a San Diego sailor Comes home with no tattoo When the lights go on at Wrigley Field I'll be coming home to you But don't wait on me Little darling, Lord can't you see? Little darling, I only go so far then No guarantee, don't wait on me to win you That's something I just can't do Never have and don't intend to Don't wait on me When the wind don't blow in Chicago And L.A. is cold and clear When they unfurl old glory And no one stands to cheat When my brother-in-law phones me And the charges aren't reversed When the cabbie don't want a bigger tip I'll be sliding home from first So don't wait on me Little darling Lord, can't you see? New darling I only go So far there's no guarantee Don't wait on me To win you That's something I Just can't do Never have and don't Intend to Don't wait on me When you load up on a long shot And he went by half a nose When the 4th of July parade Is cold because it's snow When the waiting room is empty And the dark says come right in When Christmas comes before New Year's I'll be coming home again But don't wait on me Little darling Lord, can't you see? But darling, I only go so far than good. No guarantee. Don't wait on me when you have something else. I can't do. Never have and don't intend to. Don't wait on me. Don't wait on me Don't wait on me Don't wait on me Girl, you really got me going You got me so I don't know what I'm doing Yeah, you really got me known You got me so I can't sleep at night Yeah, you really got me home You got me so I don't know what I'm doing at night Oh yeah, you really got me home You got me so I can't sleep at night You really got me, you really got me You really got me See, don't ever set me free I always wanna be by your side Girl, you really got me now You got me so I can't sleep at night Yeah, you really got me now You got me so I don't know what I'm doing Oh yeah, you really got me now You got me so I can't sleep at night You really got me, you really got me You really got me Oh, no! You see, don't ever set me free I always wanna be by your side You really got me now You got me so I can't sleep at night Yeah, you really got me now You got me so I don't know what I'm doing now