# Committee of the Whole - December 22, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 22, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1153 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1153?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-12-22 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 24,120 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on December 22, 2009, at 1:00 p.m., with the Vice Mayor presiding. The meeting included two informational agenda items focused on fiscal matters: a current budget forecast presentation from the Department of Finance and budget reduction plans from the Division of Fire. During the session, the Council heard four public comments and took one vote. The meeting centered on budget-related discussions as the body reviewed financial forecasts and departmental cost-reduction strategies. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 22, 2009: * Commissioner Rumpke * Bill O'Meara * Chief Hendricks * Commissioner Bennett * Council Member Lawless * Council Member Gordon * Council Member James * Council Member Crosby * Council Member Stennett * Council Member Henson * Council Member Feigl * Council Member McCord * Council Member Martin * Council Member Blues * Council Member Myers * Mark Blankenship * Chris Bartley * Charissa Crobo * Wade Miracle No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Adjourn** Council Member Gorton moved to adjourn the meeting, with a second from Council Member Stennett. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 2:48:45]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial actions: **Rainy Day Fund Withdrawal** An amendment was approved to withdraw $6,500,000 from the Rainy Day Fund for FY2010. **Division of Fire Budget Reduction** An appropriation of $2,718,000 was approved for a budget reduction plan for the Division of Fire. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, focusing on fire department operations and budget priorities. **Wade Miracle** [timestamp: 2:35:08] spoke in opposition to the closure of Fire Station 4. Captain Miracle, assigned to Engine 4, expressed deep concern about closing Firehouse 4, emphasizing its role as a neighborhood hub serving a diverse district. He highlighted the human and safety implications of reduced response times and urged the council to preserve the station for public safety and community pride. **Chris Bartley** [timestamp: 2:40:18] presented a firefighter union proposal in support of budget relief measures. The proposal called for deferring raises and uniform allowances, which would save $1.234 million in FY11. Bartley urged the council to accept the proposal to avoid layoffs and maintain public safety without cutting essential services. **Charissa Crobo** [timestamp: 2:43:31] spoke as a teacher and citizen, calling for fiscal responsibility and public safety prioritization. She urged the council to prioritize public safety over non-essential spending and expressed concern that cutting fire department staffing could endanger lives. Crobo called for a reevaluation of expendable programs before cutting public safety roles. **An anonymous speaker** [timestamp: 2:46:05] called for fiscal restraint and business-like budgeting practices. The speaker suggested that a qualified businessperson could identify $12 million in savings by reviewing defined benefit plans and collective bargaining agreements. The speaker emphasized that public safety must not be compromised in budget reduction efforts. ## Contested Items The December 22, 2009 meeting featured three significant areas of contention: **Closure of Fire Station 4 and 11** Public and council members expressed strong opposition to the temporary closure of Fire Station 4 and 11. The primary concerns centered on public safety risks and increased emergency response times. Community members emphasized the stations' roles as neighborhood anchors. Captain Wade Miracle delivered a passionate appeal against the closure, highlighting the importance of community trust and safety in opposing the measure. **Budget Reduction Strategy and Transparency** A heated discussion emerged regarding the fairness and timing of budget cuts. Council members expressed frustration over not being notified in advance about the proposed closures and questioned the administration's unilateral decision-making process. Council Member Crosby specifically criticized the lack of coordination with outside agencies and the timing of the closure announcement, raising concerns about how budget reduction decisions were being communicated and implemented. **Use of Rainy Day Fund** A procedural dispute arose over whether the Rainy Day Fund could appropriately be used for operating expenses. Council members questioned whether drawing down the fund for operational costs aligned with its intended purpose for catastrophic events. Additional concerns were raised about the adequacy of the fund relative to peer cities and the long-term financial implications of reducing its balance during budget constraints. ## Current Budget Forecast - Dept. of Finance [timestamp: 00:00] Commissioner Rumpke and Bill O'Meara presented the Department of Finance's FY2010 revenue forecast to the meeting. **Key Findings** The presentation highlighted a projected $12.3 million shortfall in the budget. This shortfall was attributed to three primary factors: - Declining OLT (Ohio Lottery Tax) withholdings - Declining net profits - Declining insurance premiums **Forecast Assumptions** The revenue projections were based on assumptions that collections would remain flat or show slight declines through June. The presenters emphasized the uncertainty surrounding economic indicators and their impact on future revenue streams. **Discussion Focus** The discussion underscored the need for flexibility in budget planning given the unpredictable economic environment. The speakers acknowledged that economic conditions remained difficult to forecast with precision, requiring the department and broader government to maintain adaptability in their financial planning. **Outcome** This item was presented for informational purposes, providing the meeting participants with an overview of the current fiscal situation and revenue expectations for the fiscal year. ## Budget Reduction Plans - Div. of Fire Chief Hendricks presented the Division of Fire's budget reduction plan at approximately 1:17:31 in the meeting. The plan outlined measures designed to achieve $800,000 in savings through temporary station closures and overtime management. **Key Elements of the Plan** The proposal included temporary closures of Station 4 and Station 11. A primary objective of the plan was to preserve 32 firefighter jobs despite the budget constraints. **Justification and Timing** Chief Hendricks characterized the plan as time-sensitive, emphasizing the need to implement it promptly to avoid losing the projected savings. **Issues Discussed** The presentation included discussion of public safety risks and potential impacts on response times resulting from the proposed station closures. Commissioner Bennett participated in the discussion of these concerns. **Outcome** The agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action or decision recorded at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Well, greetings everyone. I guess I should say Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Thank you all for joining us today. This is a special meeting of the council that was called at the suggestion of several council members, and we're here to talk about, really we're here to better understand the mayor's and the administration's decision as it relates to specifically, most recently, the reductions in the budget associated with our fire department. And in order to get to that, some of the council members had suggested that we invite our finance department representatives to share with us the most recent revenue estimates, projections, the financial models that we are using, and then how those models are affecting and impacting our budget reduction or budget decisions. And so Ms. Rumpke, Commissioner Rumpke, will begin our conversation today, and then we will go to and then we'll ask the Fire Chief, Chief Hendricks, for a presentation on his plan. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays to everyone. Good afternoon. I'm just going to give a very, very brief overview and a few little economic tidbits that actually feed into how we got to the numbers. And then our Director of Revenue, Bill O'Meara, who everyone knows, will be actually presenting the revenue projections, which were included in the budget and finance, but he's actually put together some additional schedules that I think will help provide clarity to everyone. So I think with that said, a couple things to keep in mind as we go through the numbers today is that putting together revenue projection analysis, it's not a science, it's an art, and we've talked about this in the chambers. We don't know when an event's going to occur. We don't know when a large employer's going to add 100 jobs or not. We just do the best that we can to get that research. For example, with health care legislation on the horizon here, that could be a very positive effect on our community if it happens quickly and we need to add more doctors to take care of the new health care legislation. But it could easily be a negative if there are efficiencies from this health care and staffing layoffs occur. So you can see where it's not quite a science. It is an art. And as we've discussed before, we're in uncharted waters for predicting revenues. The past 24 months are just unprecedented, and it makes our projections particularly difficult because the recent historical data points are like no other previous years that any of us in this room have experienced. And so in addition to putting all of this together, obviously Bill, Mary Pfister, and team, We've all been reading voraciously every piece of economic analysis we could get our hands on. We've talked to many people. We had Dr. Ken Trosky, who's the chair of economics from the University of Kentucky, come and talk to us. And Vice Mayor, he has agreed to come to the January 12th work session so that the council will have an opportunity to ask more questions if you prefer. But in reaching out to him, he did confirm for us that looking at this as an 18-month issue really is kind of the right context for us to approach this. The fact that it is a jobless recovery, you know, we're going to be adding back hours before we add back jobs, that job losses are starting to level off, which is really good news. So the bleeding is stopping, but the fact that, you know, you get 79 weeks of unemployment pay, you know, that's a long time to stay unemployed. So it's going to happen a little bit slower than what we would all hope. When we were talking, and Bill is going to talk about what our assumptions were, but this kind of folds into that, just flat employment for the balance of this fiscal year. And really, we probably wouldn't see any growth, true job growth, until sometime in calendar year 2011. Obviously, the state's budget has major impacts on what we're looking at, and I won't go into that today, but I think everybody is aware of what the state's facing. Again, we talked about the growth in the health care area. The fact that services, which is really what our economy here is based on, you know, those are lower wages than some of the manufacturing positions that we're seeing being added back right away. And that's what you're hearing on the national news. And so we need to kind of keep that in balance as we look at our projections. And then finally, and I know a few of us have talked just about the commercial real estate bubble and who's going to weather that. and the fact that, you know, we do expect interest rates to go up and behind that inflation. So I think with that context, that's a good time for Bill to come up and actually take you through the revenue projections, and then, of course, we're both available for any questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Just for reference, several council members had also mentioned that we're going to be wise to shoot for a two-hour meeting today if we can. So that's what our objective would be. Mr. O'Mara. Good afternoon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I put together these slides. It's just kind of an overview or a recap of the forecast for revenues for FY 2010. That's the year ending June 30, 2009. And to start off with, excuse me, I'm an accountant and I use numbers, and so when you try to put numbers on slides, they become small. So hopefully this will project out where you can read it. And anything that's a projection, I've tried to shade in as green. So you can tell where we are prognosticating or estimating what the results will be. But right now, we're – well, first of all, I'd like to show a little bit of context. If you'll start over to the right on the top line, you see total revenues for the general fund. And in FY 2007, it was $267.7 million. In 2008, it was $271.3 million. And then in 2009, something that has hardly ever happened occurred to Lexington. Our actual total revenues for the general fund were less than the year before. We came in at $268.6 million. As far as we can tell, that's the second time in the history that that has happened. In context, I believe the first time it happened was due to a rollback in the occupational tax. we raised the occupational tax from 2 percent to 2.5 with a sunset clause to the current rate of 2.25. And I believe that was the only other time that this has happened. This time it was not an impact of a rollback of taxes. It was an impact of the economic times. So we are currently projecting a $267.3 million end of year June 30 total revenues, and that's a decrease of about $12.3 million from the adopted budget of 2010. As we've discussed before, our four largest revenue streams are the drivers. They make up the lion's share of our revenues, so we analyze those in much more detail than the rest. And I'm going to go through and tell you what the projections are and the base assumption, and then further slides will show you the support or why we used the assumption that we did. For occupational license tax withholdings, which is our largest revenue source, the budget is $156,500. We're predicting $148 million, and that is based on the current actual collections through November and then assuming flat revenues for December through June, that we would take in the same amount that we took in last year in that category, December through June. And that would come out to $148 million. And in context, that is, we currently are trending 1.3 percent below the same period last year, calendar 2009. So January through November of 2009 is 1.3% less than January through November of 2008. And so we are hoping that we are turning the curve and that we will start to trend up and can meet the same amount as collected last year to finish the year at $148 million. Occupational license fee for net profits, the budget is $31.5. We are projecting that to be $28 million. And we're currently experiencing a 13.2% less year-to-date 2009 versus the same period last year. That is a direct reflection of the constriction of margins in the business world. The $28 million assumes that we have what we have in the bank through November and that the rest of the year, December through June, will be 7% less than last year, a little more than half of the loss that we're currently experiencing January through November of 2009. And that will get you right at $28 million. Insurance premium tax is budgeted at $21.8. We are projecting a $20.5 million for end of year. If you look to the right, you will see that there has been very little movement in insurance premium tax. It was $20.7 in 2007. It was $20.7 in 2008. It dropped to $20.468 in 2009. We were hopeful that, and this is going to sound strange, but we had a lot of significant risk losses. Last year, windstorm, ice storm, and when that happens, usually there is an increase in rates, and we were hoping that we would benefit from that increase in rates because this is based on the total insurance bill that each person has for the risk in Fayette County. However, with sales down of durable goods, new car sales are less, Therefore, there is less increase in car loan base, and we have not seen the rate increases that we had heard was going to come. So we are assuming basically flat for that to come out at $20.5 million. And the other, I guess, the one glimmer of hope, we certainly hope so anyway, There was a significant increase in franchise fee revenue in 2009. As you can see over to the right, we were at $15 million in 2007. It went to $15.8 million in 2008. And we obtained $17.5 million in 2009. And we budgeted that flat at $17.5 million. And we are hoping that we can obtain that this year at $17.5 million. There were rate increases that were put in by utilities last year that are reflected in that 2009 actual. However, we did have some significant weather that contributed to that, and the price of natural gas was a lot higher last year than it appears to be this year. So we have some things going against us in trying to make that $17.5 million. But we're hopeful that we will obtain that. So of the four major revenue categories, that would be a $13.3 million decrease between the projections for those items versus what the 2010 budget is. When we put this together, we were hopeful that we would see an actual positive in the services category of about $1 million. We were hopeful that golf revenues, EMS collections, and detention fees would exceed budget. The actuals through October have not reflected that yet, but that was the assumptions when we put this together. And that came to a net total change in revenue of a decrease of $12.3 million. The next page are the assumptions that I just went over with you for those line items, and then I have for each of the four a little explanation of why we felt like we would do the assumptions that we did. To the left are quarterly results for fiscal year 07, 08, and 09, showing you July through September, October through November, December separately since we have not incurred December yet, and then the other two quarters remaining. And you can see that we had growth in quarterly collections throughout fiscal year 2008. But in 2009, there was a decrease in revenues both in the January-March quarter as well as the April-June quarter. So we plugged in what actually came in through November and then looked at what would happen if we continued the 1 percent decline that we're experiencing now. The January through November actuals are 1.3 percent less than the same period last year. If we continue that projection, that would equal a total for this category of 147.2 million. If we actually start to increase a little bit in our collections and actually mate the same amounts that we did last year, that would come up to 148.1. And if we actually turned around and had increases for the remainder of the year, the December through June of 1%, it would project out to 148.9. of the three equal the 156.5 budget. We chose the 148 as the projection to work off of right now. We're hoping that the economics, as Commissioner Rumpke showed, that the loss of jobs has slowed down, hopefully will be stopping. We know that there have been productivity gains even during the recession, which shows there is capacity with the current employers to add hours. The good thing about occupational withholdings is whether it's a current employee or a future employee, it is based on total earnings. So even if we do not have new hires but the current people average more hours, that will increase their total wages, and we would benefit from that. So hopefully something like that will occur, and we chose the flat option to project out for occupational withholdings. For net profits, I broke this down into two slides. The actual is on the first slide, and then the projection options are on the second. The takeaway from this slide is the fact that this is highly seasonal. If you will look at the fourth quarter of every year, it's more than 50 percent of the total collections of this category. That reflects the fact that most people file on a calendar year basis with their tax filings due April 15th, and payments therefore occur in the fourth quarter. The good news is it comes in in the fourth quarter. The bad news is we're having to project what that fourth quarter is going to be. And, again, to give you some context, the last recession, which was in 2000, payroll was soft in the year 2000-2001 and then rebound. In that recession, net profits fell off 8.3% in the following year, 2002, followed by an additional decrease of 1.8% in FY03. So in that recession, the payroll showed up first. The following next two years, the margins were still not there for business, and we had decreases in net profits. This recession, we had flat revenues in FY09 for withholdings, and our withholdings actually went down 2.2% in the year ending June 30, 2009. And so we think that that bleeding has not stopped yet and that there will be a continued decrease in margins for businesses reflected in the April 15 filings. And that is why we're going with actually revenues less than last year, which were less than the year before. How much less? Again, year to date, the 11 months ending November of 2009 compared to the same 11 months in calendar year 2008, we are 13% less in collections in this category than the year before. If you project a 10% decline for the remainder of the year, it would give you a total of $27.3 million. At 7%, it's $28 million. If it's only a 5% decline, it would be $28.5 million. And I actually have, just for reference, but I'm not predicting it, so I didn't put it up on the slide. But at a 13% decline, if the same experience that we have experienced in calendar year 2008 and 2009 continues through remainder, year, it would come up with a total in this category of $26.5 million for FY10. We are hoping again that since we had soft collections last year that we will not have double-digit declines a second year in a row. And so we are hoping that the 13 percent margin will come in for the remainder of the calendar of the fiscal year at 7 percent, and that is the one that's squared out there that would come up to the 28 million projection that we're going with for net profits. On insurance premium tax, again, it's presented basically the same way that the net profits. Here is the actual history showing you that it's been relatively flat, but there was constriction in the fourth quarter of 2000, FY09. We have already taken in the 4.8 in the first quarter, the 5.3 in the October through November. So if you consider insurance flat for the remainder of the year, it would come in at 20.3 million. If you think we'll have a pickup from any rate increases, it would come in at 20.4. And if it was up 2 percent, it would be up 20.5. So you can see that the margin is not as great in this one, depending on what assumption we use. It's 100,000 each way. We are recommending to stick with 20.5. And then finally, franchise fees. Actually, I just showed you the monthly collections. There is some variances to when different utilities make payments. But as you can see, we had a tremendous increase in that revenue stream in fiscal year 09. We are tracking very close to that. Actually, we're ahead of that. And the reason is you can see here that we got a payment earlier this year than the same time last year. But if you take that into consideration, we're basically tracking with the same as last year, and that is before the winter months and the price of natural gas might have impacted us. we went ahead and stuck with same as last year for this category. So those are the projections. Those were the thought processes we used in order to come up with those, and that is where the $12 million to $13 million revenue shortfall compared to budget number came from. Thank you, Bill. I think we could take questions now from council members. Jeanette, I am showing the speakers on my monitor. Right. Okay. So, all right. So, Commissioner. I was just, I guess, in closing, to bring it full circle, I think it's important for everyone to note that we weren't going with the worst projections, and it's not the most optimistic. We were trying category by category to really hone down, you know, what makes sense for this particular source of revenue, whether it be flat, potentially up a little bit, or, you know, the size of decrease that we're projecting. And, again, it's an art. It's not a science. So you can see what the factors are, and hopefully by giving you the various columns, you'll also be able to do your own sensitivity analysis to say, well, you know, if things start to come in better, here's where we might end up. And so hopefully that will be helpful, but we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. So if council members will just acknowledge on your monitor, then I am now seeing council members' names. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, and thanks for all your hard work on this. As I look at the last budget and finance committee packet, it's really hard to compare, and I feel like we're often comparing apples to oranges. But what I'm seeing here is that from July through September of FY10 and October through November, the numbers stay pretty steady, very small decrease. Is that correct? And which line items are you looking at? Well, this is withholdings. And I don't see the actual results on net profit for those two periods for 2010. On the next page. Oh, wait a minute. They're on the next page. We had to separate the two slides because they would be so small they would have shown up on the screen. So are you speaking from the budget and finance presentation? No, I'm speaking from the one today. Okay. I'm sorry, we're not sure exactly what you're asking. Okay. For FY 2010 on net profits. Net profits, okay. It seems that there's a slight decrease from the FY09 actual from July through November. Is this the slide you're referring to? The next page. Looking at those two pages. Okay. And the same with the insurance is down slightly. July through September, but seems to have held steady October through November, correct? The 5.268 in 2009 versus, well, that didn't help. 5.268 versus 5.364. Those are very close for the two months ending. So these projections are so first four months of the FY 2010, we're really not down that much on these particular items. Well, let me refer you back to the assumption page from the budget and finance. And I spoke to this, and it's on the assumption page. This schedule was already presented at budget and finance. The January through November, the withholdings, if you see month to month, they vary depending on when timing comes in. But if you look at the January through November 11 months ending, in calendar year 2009, we've taken in $136.4 million. In calendar year 2008, we took in $138.285. Okay, I don't have that in front of me. I've put it up for you. You were referring to the Budget and Finance Committee. I mean. And this is what I spoke to in the assumption where I said year-to-date we're down 1.3 percent. Year-to-date, excuse me, not year-to-date, calendar-to-date we're down 1.3 and withholdings we're down 13.2 in net profit. And I was referring to the schedules that were presented at the Budget and Finance Committee. So I think to answer your question, you said they weren't down. There wasn't a lot of difference, and 1.3 percent is a small decline. And so we saw them down a lot early on, but they're starting to level off, which is why the assumption that we used from December through June going forward was to assume flat year over year versus a decline, because we're seeing it starting to flatten out, and we feel that that's an optimistic look, but still being conservative in how we're looking at it year over year, Council Member Lawless. But to your point, yes, it's showing a 1.3% year over year decline, so almost flat. And so we're hoping that we're trending flat, and that's why we use the assumption from December through June as flat. The other question I have is the sanitary sewer fees and the water quality fees. Where are they in this mix? They are not in this at all. They are not accessible by the general fund. We're talking about general fund dollars and what budget is supported by general fund dollars. Okay. So that would also hold true with the garbage fee. And just out of curiosity, if somebody could let us know, So it was reduced by $2 or $3 per homeowner with the hopes and projection that we would be more efficient and it would cost less. And I'd like to hear how that's going as soon as possible, maybe by the January. Vice Mayor? Just a point of order. I was wanting to ask the parliamentarian, are we going to stick to our own five-minute rule? Yeah, I was going to. Because we could be here all day if we just keep going and going, but until Christmas. Yep. Thank you. I'm sorry I didn't see the clock, and I appreciate it. Councilman. Councilman Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner and Bill, thank you very much for being here. I'm curious, Commissioner, I think I just heard you say something like, and if revenues come in differently. And then I'm not sure I heard what you said after that. So my question has to do with going forward. And your December through June, of course, is possible outcomes. So are you, and this is going to relate then to our next topic, but I'm going to ask it now because I think it's important. Is the administration looking at your flat prediction and carrying that all the way through June? Or are you going to assume that for now and then adjust, and when will you be adjusting? because one of my concerns is cutting a lot of things now based on a projection through June, and I think you said potentially revenues can be different, which we know. So how are you looking at this next six months? Well, again, I think at the beginning I brought in the context that we're actually looking at it over the next 18 months because I think that we have to. The reality is it will be April, as Bill demonstrated, where a large percentage of our revenue won't even be collected until April, which means it will be May before we actually know those numbers. And given the trending that we're seeing, and even if every category, instead of being down, went to flat, we would have a very, very difficult time making up for that in, what, a 60-day period to balance the budget. But you have to look beyond that and some of the things that are going to be on the horizon for us in FY11 that are already sitting there waiting for us. Obviously, we have negotiated pay raises with the collective bargaining units. We have various and other sundry things that the council will be dealing with from a bonding standpoint, from a capital project standpoint. So as we are thinking about this, we look at the numbers the minute that we get the revenue projections in to try to continue to hone our trend analysis. But what I was trying to point out at the beginning is we're not using the most conservative analysis. We've actually baked in some positive perspective, Council Member Gordon. And there are pieces there that, I mean, if we had a, you know, it's an if game. So if we have a major employer that decides to cut workforce by 25 percent, you know, we haven't really baked that in the numbers, but it's kind of that ebb and flow. So that's why we're bringing what we are bringing. But to your question about how do we look at this, we look at it the minute that we get our collections in and step back and look at our analysis. So this is something Bill, Mary, and I sit and do almost every day. Well, and I presume that budget and finance will have an update like we usually do, but I was trying to get a sense of, you know, council's heard lots of rumors about what's being cut and what fees are going up, And I'm trying to get a sense of whether that is based on a flat prediction through June. And so then will we make an adjustment in June if revenue, what if someone does bring in a, you mentioned what if someone cuts jobs, what if someone brings in jobs? And we hope that's the case. Do you know what I'm trying to say? I know exactly what you're asking. How do we adjust on a month-to-month basis? And are the cuts and the rumors of cuts that we're hearing based on through June predictions? Or are they based on something a little more flexible? Well, maybe the better way for me to answer this, first of all, every, as you all are aware, every director in urban county government was asked to put together a budget reduction plan. And as we're bringing the total plan together to bring back to discuss with council, what we are trying to do is build flexibility into our plan to take into consideration many of the positives and negatives because of our inability to say this is what it's going to be. And so I think that that probably addresses your question. Now, are we budgeting flat to June? There are some categories we're budgeting down, if you look at the assumptions, and some that we're budgeting flat that actually aren't even there yet. And so if you're asking are we looking at this from a flexibility standpoint, we absolutely are because the other process we have been going through is we've been looking for, you know, where are potential other budget saves or revenue opportunities that would actually lift us so that we could, you know, none of us want to be at $12 or $13 million, but we don't want to be ill-prepared going into FY11 as well and have a huge hurdle right out of the gate on July 1st. So I don't know if I've answered your question. I'm sorry. Well, sort of. I'm just trying to get a sense for, you know, So I think we're going to be brought a whole lot of cuts when we come back, at least if what I hear is correct. And I just, I guess we're just going to have to go month to month because if we cut something way back and then we find out our revenues are coming in better than we had hoped, we've already cut that, whatever that might be. So I'm just, that was what my concern was based around. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gordon. Council Member James and Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks, Linda. One of my questions is related to what you responded to Council Member Gordon, which was what's the plan to increase revenue over the next two quarters as well? Do we have opportunities for increased revenue as we're looking at our expenditures being cut? We should also be looking for that balance. I heard you kind of say that, and I do hope that you're aiming towards that. Another question I had is what else will happen similar to the firehouse before we get back from break? What other things are going to be changing between now and January 12th? Well, and I know you're going to have a whole presentation, so I'm not going to, you know, jump in on the FIRE presentation. But I think what's important for everyone to note is that we have been talking about the fact that we have to manage our day-to-day operating budget and that the mayor and the administration has been working really hard with vacancy management, with overhead, all of those different categories to try to control that. Overtime management is actually something that everyone has been doing across the urban county government, and I believe you all even had conversations about this before I came on board last spring. So, you know, it's hard for me to say we're doing X or we're doing Y because we've been doing it every day. And so. Well, what new? Because that overtime management is something that's typical. Parks and Recreation Community Centers closing on Fridays and Saturdays. you'd have to ask our Commissioner of General Services. I mean, you know, we each manage our day-to-day budget. I mean, we're happy to call her up here, but the reality is... Well, I just wondered if you've seen the budget reduction plans? Have you seen those offered by them? The original ones, yes. And so we're trying to put together what makes sense collectively across all of the different areas. So why would there be certain decisions made now related to budget reduction as opposed to when collectively all of those things are together? Well, and again, I go back to overtime management. In order to really get our arms around managing our day-to-day operations in the situation of fire, they have a window with which they need to manage to their operating budget. And so some of the moves that they're making, and again, I don't want to speak on behalf of the chief. I know he's going to be coming up here and Commissioner Bennett. all of us are stepping back and saying, okay, do we need this overtime now? Because we're all being asked to row the oars the same way here and find opportunities so that we're not looking at layoffs, so that we can have the opportunity to retain jobs. So I don't know that anyone is specifically just raising their hand and saying, well, I'm going to go do something different today. That's not what we're doing. And so when we come back, I think those are going to be the specific conversations. Here's what we're bringing to the table over and above what every commissioner and director of urban county government have already been doing, Council Member James. Okay. Does that help? It does make sense. And what about the contingency fund? What's the current balance on that, and how do you see that being utilized? Okay. The rainy day fund? Mm-hmm. Well, interestingly enough, we just did a calculation yesterday, and if you base it on the revenue projections that we have just given, I believe, and I've got that number here, can I look at it? Sure. It's 6.5 million would be the maximum that we could draw down. Is that what you're asking? Yes. What we could actually access would be 6.5 million. Now that is, and we've got the calculation per the ordinance. Now that is higher than what we talked about in budget and finance, so I don't want anyone to be confused because in budget and finance, we did it per the ordinance based on the revenues that were in the budget. So my statement needs to be qualified that we used these revenue estimates, and if that's where we think we're going to come in, that's what that calculation would be. Otherwise, it's five. Do you remember what that is? Five seconds. Hold on just a second. I've got that right here. Okay. I think while you're doing that, I understood Council Member James' question to be, what is the amount, the total amount within the recommendation? Oh, I'm sorry. I believe. I'm sorry. Linda. Let me get my glasses on. I can't see. The other is worthwhile information as well. Okay. Okay. What was in your budget and finance packets, or we talked about it, budget and finance, we had $11.74 million, and we would have a maximum withdrawal of $5.87 million. Because that's based on revenues. That's based on revenues, and I have the calculations all lined out with the ordinance. Now, what I was referring to, Council Member James, is the calculation that we did just in preparation of this meeting. And I apologize, I'm flipping through my papers here. Oh, maybe I didn't bring it. I said it was 6-5, Bill. Is that what you? Yeah, it's somewhere at 6-5. Let me see if I've got it right here. How would that be utilized? So say that 6.5 is the drawdown. At what point does the administration then bring forward something to council that says, let's move this money over to the general fund? It would be in the form of a budget amendment request. Okay. And it would move from this fund into the general fund and then with the direction to be spent. beyond that. Okay. You looking at doing that? You all looking at doing that? I think we're looking at every option on the table at this point. All right. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm going to ask some questions I think some of us know, but I'd like for the public to be able to hear. What was our total budget for last fiscal year? Bill, you want to jump in? Oh, that's the actual. Sorry, guys. I didn't bring the budget. $273,000, I believe, wasn't it? Maybe somebody up here might want to answer my next question. Did we spend our entire budget? Hmm? No. So last year, we made really no aggressive efforts at reducing our budgets, and we came in, according to my numbers, about 2 percent under our budget. Is that correct? I would disagree with the no aggressive. Well, we didn't do it. We didn't hire. We didn't fill positions. Very aggressive management of open positions and actually unfunded a bunch of positions going into 2010. So there was a whole lot of management going on in order to make sure we did not. Are we doing that? We're pretty much still doing that this year, correct? So we haven't changed our strategy as far as what we did last year, and we still came in roughly 2% under budget, correct? So we haven't really changed that strategy at all. But we're continuing to manage vacancy as opposed to looking to lay off individuals. Has every director turned in their plans? All but some of the, every director has turned their plan in, to my knowledge. All of the agencies we sent letters out to, but I haven't heard back from everyone, but I expect to hear back from them shortly. When were those letters sent? I think a week ago, a week or two ago. You just sent agencies a letter a week ago requesting budget reductions from them? Yes. Okay, I'll hold off right now until after fire presents. Thank you. Council Member Stennett, then Council Member Henson and Feigel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just again, Linda, or Commissioner Remke, to kind of summarize where we're at today, our current budget is $279 million, correct? And I think Council Member Gorman was talking about being flat. That's compared to last year's revenue number. That is correct. Which was $268 million or $12 million less. That's correct. So this council, when we passed the budget, we knew that we increased the budget from a 268 number to a 279 or 4.08 percent. We've got to find it. That's right. And if we do go flat, which we're lucky enough to do, but your projections, I think, are a couple categories, 7 percent down, et cetera, we've still got to find $12 million. Yes. Regardless of what we do today. Yes. And I think the point I want to make here is that's just the tip of the iceberg, because come July 1, I think you all will begin working on the budget for next year. Talk about the three big increases that this council is going to have to figure out how to fit into that 268 number and balance the budget for next year because I think, you know, while this is a short-term problem and the Economic Contingency Fund may help us the next six months, I know I've asked you to look at several different other ways to balance this budget for this year, including borrowing from ourselves some of the fund balances that Councilman Lawless alluded to, looking at outside sources, looking at the hotel-motel tax for world equestrian games, looking at everything we can. Also, the fund balance from 2008, we still have that number, which is around $2.6 million that we can maybe use to get us through. So the next six months, I know we're focusing on it today, is not the issue. The issue comes July 1. I think that needs to be understood today. So what are those three big increases come July 1? The first one, just our increase in debt service, Obviously not counting the bonds we're getting ready to do, but the ones we've already floated. We have a $9 million increase in debt service year over year. And that's not from this bond we're going to do in January? No, no. That will come in 2012, FY12. The second would be the collective bargaining salaries. Point of order. Point of order, please. Pardon me. Point of order. I thought the agenda was on current budget forecasting. So the things that Council Member Stenet is talking about, I don't know exactly that they relate to the current budget forecasting. Well, the chair will hear the point of order. Mr. Stenet, you have something to? I do if we could let Commissioner Rumpke finish because it does relate to what we do now. because if we do borrow from the rainy day fund today to get through these next six months, it's not going to be available to borrow in next budget. So that does have an immediate impact on what our decisions are the next six months. Chair accepts the Council Member Stenet. Continue, please. The second category I referred to in my opening remarks, which is the increases that have already been negotiated for our public safety, and I'm sorry I don't have that number right off the top of my head, But it is a significant number, somewhere below $10 million, but it's a significant number. That's an increase. And then the third is, it just went out of my head. Non-recurring revenue. Yes. Thank you. We had this year built into the budget, there's $4.5 million in various categories of what's termed non-recurring revenue. Now, that doesn't mean we're not going to have additional items next year, but we have no way of knowing in advance what we're going to have and what we're not going to have. And so those three particular items, in addition to all of the other things that we've been talking about, are what's going to be hitting us day one. So that's a roughly $24 million difference. Yes. For next year. That, to me, is the real problem. But the next six months, the impact it has on the Economic Contingency Fund and borrowing that full $6.5 million means we can't do it to balance the budget for next year. Is that correct? That would be correct. If we take a withdrawal today, do we have the same option to recalculate next year? I'll have to ask our legal counsel, but I believe, you know, if you look at the calculation, the methodology, you potentially could draw, but there's not going to be enough to draw. It would be a better way to put that. Last question is on the fund balance from 08. Is that in your projections? No. So that can also help us soften the $12 million projection a little bit. And if I could just address that, it's the actual number, which I did research after we talked, after budget and finance, is right around $2 million. If you recall, Council, some of that money was used on inversions earlier. And so as we went through the calculations, it's about $2 million. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question about each division director, commissioner, were asked to do across the board budget reduction. Was the percentage of that reduction the same for all divisions? Yes. Have you looked at, I know you were talking that you were looking at everything possible, but I was thinking that maybe some divisions could afford more of an increase than others. So is that something that, you know, more of a reduction, I'm sorry, than others? So is that something that would be looked at? I think that's as we're bringing everything back together, that's where the prioritization of is there going to be more cuts in certain areas than others takes place. But to be very specific, every single director got the same percentage, but they were not told how to get there. So if they could get there through an operating reduction or through vacancy management, then so be it. If they couldn't get there and they needed to propose a layoff, that's what they, or a furlough or, you know, whatever. So we gave them a number but not how to get there because we wanted them to really step back and personalize it for the area that they're responsible for. Okay. Because, you know, I just felt like what if they could afford a larger reduction than 5 percent? would they come forward and they did across the board I think and forgive me because I don't have the numbers in front of me but I think every single commissioner actually came in higher than what was being asked okay thank you you're welcome Council Member Feigl thank you thanks so much for being here today I know this is a really tough job And I just have a few questions. One is I just want to clarify something, and you may have addressed this before I came in a little bit late. On the net profits, your assumption for the collections has been, well, calendar year to date is 13.2, correct? Negative. But you are now assuming a 7% negative. Yes. What led you to make that adjustment? Well, do you want to talk a little bit? I mean, I know you're trying to be as conservative and yet not be too gloomy. Yes. That's a true statement. So what kind of information did you use to project only a 7% reduction when current year to date is 13? Well, the two points of reference looking at the last recession, which is not necessarily a mirror image of this one, we had two down years in net profits. We already had a 2 percent reduction in F by 09 compared to 08. and to project a double-digit one for 10 on top of a 2% reduction seemed very conservative. The other thing is, if you look at the current economic indicators, everybody keeps hoping that things are about to turn around. They are about to turn around. Well, we certainly hope they do, too. The one point of warning is that the period that is being paid April 15th is for calendar year 2019. So to come up with a total decrease of the two years at double digits, the 7 percent decrease, is a projection. It is an estimate. It is a guess. It can be worse. We hope it can be better. And that's why I showed multiple percentages to give you some sense of what the variance would be. Okay. Another question. I wanted to talk a little bit just about some of the different pots of money that have been referred to here today. One of them that's very disconcerting to me is that if we begin talking about our rainy day fund, Are there some criteria for what those funds can be used for? Because my understanding is that those funds are for catastrophic events that might occur in your city that are totally unanticipated. And I know that there probably are some guidelines for what those funds can be used for. There are, and I have a copy of the ordinance here, but if I can ask Commissioner, ask you to come down and address that. I do not have that with me, but I can get a copy of it and distribute it. Well, just to make this a little shorter, are we able to draw down those funds just to supplement operating expenses? Yes, I believe so. And this is just an ordinance. The Rainy Day Fund is an ordinance that you all adopted back in 2000. Well, it says in 2006 it was amended, but it's an ordinance that you all have adopted. Okay. And was that actually the beginning of that ordinance? I mean, that fund? It looks like it was 1990, ordinance number 243-90. Okay. Not to take more than my five minutes, but this is my concern, is that I think our balance in that rainy day fund is something like about $15 million. You mentioned 11.74, but I thought we had talked earlier, and there was about 15. This is based on – I don't have the one that's based on the actual fiscal year in 2009 in my folder. I apologize to counsel. I just have the one that's based on this revenue projection. And if you look at it, based on this revenue projection, and I'm happy to send this out via email to everybody, the amount, the difference between estimated and proposed amounts is 11.7. Okay. And then the maximum withdrawal would be 5.8. And that's based on, oh, and I'm sorry, this is fiscal year June 30, 2010. Okay. I apologize. I didn't read that right. Well, it's even less than I thought it was. Yeah, it is. And this is a tough question, but what does a normal city of our size generally have in their contingencies fund? Well, according to many of the bonding agencies that compare us to peer groups, they have anywhere between $44 million and $60 million in their contingency funds. So obviously we've made a valiant effort to step forward and start building this, but we're not close to where our peer group is. Thank you. I just wanted to make that clear to everybody that that's not just a pot of money that you can go to every time you need, you know, to supplement your budget. Thank you. Mr. McCord. Mr. McCord. Thank you, Chair. Again, thank you all for coming forward. I think that what needs to be done here, especially with the folks that are in the room that are watching, and what we're trying to do with this first hour, first presentation, is to frame what's really going on here, because I think there's a misconception that there's just couch money laying around and everybody's flush with cash. And while there are certain things that folks can always point to and say, well, why is this, why is that, what I want to do today is lay some facts out so that I'm clear and everybody else is clear. Can I just kind of get a true-false from you? Let me run through these rough numbers. The total budget that we have adopted is $279 million. That's correct. Roughly. Of that, $150 million is public safety, about 55% or so. Yes, that's correct. So if you factor in all public safety, so $150 million of that $279 is put towards public safety in some form or fashion. Of the $279 number, we have three things. Basically, you have payroll, people, you have debt, which is our bonds, and you have operation money, basically, right? The payroll, the people side of what we do is 70% of our budget. So 70% roughly of that $279 million goes to pay for a person doing a job for this government, for the people of Lexington. That's about $195 million. That $279 million is for people doing services. That's correct. Our debt service right now is about $28 million. Is that correct, roughly? Roughly. Okay. So if you add $195 million to $28 million, that gives you $223 million that is obligated to a person or to debt that we've incurred to do something. So that is fixed cost. You can't really do anything about it. So when you break that number down, operation money means that across all of government, all of government, you have about $45 million to find cuts in. if we're not going to let people go. I mean, that's it, right, in a nutshell. And I don't think anybody in this room wants to see a single person let go, and especially the folks that are represented in here today. So the bottom line is, while we're throwing numbers everywhere, and it can get very confusing to me and to the folks that are in this room, that are watching on TV, the bottom line is, is that if we come in flat at 268, and we've obligated $223 million to people or to debt, We've only got $45 million to find 12. And if we don't want to let people go, then we've got to get very creative in what we cut. And as we start looking at our operating budgets, now you're starting to look at we're moving operating budgets back to early 2000s level and potentially to 1998 levels if we go long enough. So, again, from where I sit, you know, I don't want to – I don't think anybody wants to have this discussion, and it's a very painful thing, but I think something that Council Member Stenet said that is very, very important that needs to be reiterated over and over. Six months, we can solve this problem. What we've got here today, we can solve that. There's no doubt in my mind. But coming out of the blocks, July 1, we have obligations with contracts, with union contracts. We have debt obligations that basically are going to add to this number, And if revenues don't come in, if jobs aren't created inside Fayette County's borders, we are very limited in what we can actually create. And something else that's very important to keep in mind, and I think you mentioned this, Commissioner, a while back, that if you have someone on unemployment, and if the unemployment rolls are showing that unemployment is becoming less and less, that doesn't necessarily mean they've found a job. It means that maybe the unemployment benefits from the 70-some weeks is over. So the bottom line to it is we have got to be massively creative, and we need to be very good stewards with what we have on a daily basis, but we're only talking about a very small amount of money, $45 million, to make this up minus cutting people. And we don't want to get into that at all costs, at least I don't. And so at the end of the day, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page, especially heading into this next presentation, that we are understanding what we're having to work with. And I appreciate you all bringing the numbers, but I think that's just very key and in very simple terms. We can get lost in spreadsheets, but it boils down to that. Are those very real numbers, in your opinion? Yes. Thank you. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a request. Is there anyone in the office who could bring us the total in the Rainy Day Fund? We've heard $15 million. We've heard $11 million. The Rainy Day Fund is a calculation based on certain revenue categories. Yes. And so I can give you a copy of as of 630 and then as of 630-09. I'm sorry. Is there a calculation as of December 1st or the most recent calculation? What would that be? We can get it while you all are speaking to the next group. That would be great because there's a big difference between $15 million, $16 million, and $11 million, and I think several council members have asked that question. I appreciate it very much. Not a problem. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thanks, Bill. Earlier I neglected to acknowledge Commissioner Bennett who is here today, and I assume that, Commissioner Bennett, you'll introduce this part of our presentation. While you're on the way up, I believe Council Member Lawless. Yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't, Commissioner Romke, I'm not sure if you all are the ones to answer this or not. But one of the issues with, and this probably goes to the next presentation, one of the issues with fire personnel was excessive overtime due to lack of staffing. And I understand we have one class that's graduated and another one coming on that will alleviate some of that overtime pay. But I was wondering if it was my understanding at the last council meeting that no reductions would be put in place until the first meeting after we get back from break and had the mayor's proposed budget reductions put together from the different divisions and that we would get clearer numbers than we were able to get at the last council meeting. And forgive me, I didn't go back and look at the tape, but my understanding was that we would continue to do vacancy management, operations management, overtime management because that's what we do every day, and then we would be bringing our budget reduction recommendations to you after the break. And so I think what has been on the table today, as I stated earlier, I think to Councilmember James, is the fact that the overtime management discussion that you're getting ready to have was part of our day-to-day overtime management analysis that has been going on in every division. And it wasn't something separate just because we're sitting here doing budget reduction conversations. conversation. So again, I didn't watch the tape, so I don't know exactly what to say. The second question I have real quickly is do you know how much was saved by the closure of station 4, firehouse number 4 and number 11 this past weekend? I don't know off the top of my head, but I believe the chief and everyone else has those numbers for you, Council Member Lawless. All right. We'll go get that information for you. By the way, the contingency fund, the $11 million, that was as of 2008 because I can't see out of my glasses. So we'll go get the FY 2009 information and get it back to you. Council Member James. Commissioner Ruckke, one last question. I'm sorry. Let's talk a little bit about how leading into the next discussion, the budget process, I know you're in the midst of it right now, and it's kind of a strange animal, but I just wanted to kind of put it out there and then ask a quick question, that the mayor does a proposed budget through which he works with the commissioners and division directors and comes up with something to present to council members. And then council members then look at that, we amend it or ratify it, whatever. It goes through that process, and then it becomes the budget. That's correct. that we guide our business by for that fiscal year. Then if there's an increase needed in something or if money traditionally needs to be moved, there will be a budget amendment. That's correct. Okay. Do you know if there is anything like a budget amendment that would be required for a reduction in expenditures? So say something had been budgeted by council to be a certain amount, but you're reducing that budget, Is there any type of ordinance resolution action by counsel needed for that, or is that the administration role to deal with that? Well, I think the day-to-day operation is the administration. And, again, if I'm off base, I'm not an attorney, so our legal counsel can discuss that. But the way I look at this is you may have a line item budget for utilities, and you as a manager do a great job and all your people keep it at 68 degrees, you're not changing that budget line item. You're just doing a great job managing to that budget line item or below that budget line item. So that would not come back. And that's why I was talking about the day-to-day management. So that wouldn't necessarily come back to the council unless we were moving between categories. and again, being the new kid, we would probably want to consult Commissioner Askew. You referred me to you. Oh, okay. Well, that's my understanding, and that's how we have been operating. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that, that there's a legislative role that deals with a budget, setting certain amounts, and then there's an administrative role, which does things that are cost-saving kind of things during the year, and that's what you all do. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner. I just have a question. Ms. O'Meara, is he still close? I think he went to get your numbers for you. I apologize. Okay. You can ask me, and if I don't know, we'll get that answer to you. Okay. In the last budget and finance meeting, we have, and I can give you a copy of this if you don't have it. I think you took mine. As you're walking back, when you look at this list, and I guess I could have given you another one to put it up on overhead, the personnel expenses and operating expenses were down $1.5 million for personnel and $3.4 million for operating expenses? Yes. I know this is just year to date to October. Mm-hmm. Are these expenses that are going to continue throughout? We don't know what's wrapped up in here. So first, I guess, in January, could you give us a list of what those offering expenses cuts were or savings were and then the personnel expense savings? Sure. We can tell you where we are year to date. That's not a problem at all. And are you asking what's in the categories themselves? Yes, absolutely, we can do that for you. And I can't tell you everything off the top of my head, but, you know, personnel expense obviously I think speaks for itself, but it does have the overtime, et cetera. So that's where you would get some vacancy management lift would be in that section. And then in the operating expense, I mean, you know, that could be fuel, fleet, paper clips, you know, utilities, all of the things that you would normally see there. Okay. So the other question I have for you, when you pull that together and what's actually in those two line items, is moving forward the second half of the year, are we going to expect another 3.4 savings and 1.5 savings, or are those one time up to October? Well, some of them may have, again, I'm just going to talk in generalities today since I don't have everything. Some of them may have been one-time saves. Some of them may have been saves because we didn't do it the first half of the year, but we're going to need to do it the second half of the year. So it goes back to Council Member James' question in managing the timing of certain things, and that's where we're trying to build some flexibility in. So, you know, as we look at pools or when do we hire temporary staff, do we do it in January or do we do it in March? You know, those are the things that are in these plans that directors have put together. So that's what we would be able to share is that here's what we're projecting in operating, in personnel, you know, in those categories. But now what's reflected in this spreadsheet here doesn't have to do with the cuts that have been requested of the directors, correct? No, no. This is our day-to-day management, but what it does address is January of last year when the mayor came to the directors and commissioners and they put together the budget reduction plan to try to have a balanced budget by June 30th, and all of the things that they did then and continued to do at the beginning of this budget year, that's what's reflected. Okay. And then the second question I have is on that carryover from 08, I thought it started at $4 million at one point. It did. Can you give us just maybe send an email out to us sometime this next week or this week that gives us that $4 million and then where it went? Yes, I can. Okay. Do you know off the top of your head how much we spend on inversions? I don't off the top of my head. It was under a million. I think it might have been like $400,000, but don't hold me to that number. I don't have it off the top of my head yet. Okay. But we do have all that information. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Bennett? Oh. Just looking at the clock, just for a time check here, we – Tim, how much – in terms of a presentation time, what are you imagining? I think the presentation will be fairly brief. Okay. I think most of it is going to be responding to the Council members' questions. I thought so, too. Thank you, sir. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. I'll be very brief, and then I want to turn it over to Chief Hendricks to talk about some of the operational issues, which I think is probably what you may want to get into more deeply. But I wanted to put a little bit of this in context, and I think Council Member McCord did a great job a minute ago in helping to frame the numbers that we're dealing with. In essence, what we're dealing with is a $12 million hole in the budget. And between now and the end of the year, we have to find a way to plug that hole. We can't afford to wait until April or May to see if things might get better and then find out that they didn't and then not be left with a way to plug the hole. I think it's more prudent for us, for all of us, to plan to deal with that $12, $13 million challenge today. And then if things turn around, some things you may want to accomplish can be restored. But once you lose the opportunity for the savings, it's gone. And it leaves you really with no flexibility to deal with it. The operating side of the budget is where people typically look at first for budget reduction opportunities. Council Member McCord mentioned a number, I think, of roughly $40 million as what would be the opportunity. For the entire year, almost $19 million of that's in public safety. Large number. We ought to be able to go in there and cut a lot of money out, right? Well, think about what's in that number. It's the utilities for everything we operate. Very little flexibility there. It's the vehicle fuel, and public safety lives on vehicles. We have to have them to deliver the services. It's the vehicle repairs to keep the vehicles on the road to be able to deliver the services. In fire's case, it's $2.5 million in fire hydrant rental we have to pay to Kentucky American Water every year. In corrections case, it's the food service contract. It's the medical contract. It's the mental health contract. So when you look at that $18 million worth of operating budget, there's very little that the department has any flexibility over, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 million to $4 million. So if you're looking at any significant budget cuts, that's not going to give you a lot of relief. The department overall, $150 million budget, 86% of that's people. Fire department, as an example, 89% of its budget is people. There's not a lot of other places to look. Now, when I say people, that's not just fill positions. That includes overtimes. That includes pension contributions and some of the other personnel-related costs. But it is all directly related to delivering services. So the challenge that the chief was given, the challenge that all the division directors were given, is tell us what would happen if you had to cut your budget 5%. What are the things that would have to be done to accomplish that? And as Commissioner Rumpke and Director O'Mara said, we're still in the process of trying to get all that stuff assembled, prioritized, and come up with a final recommendation. But the one thing we couldn't afford to do, and this is one of the examples today, is forego an opportunity for some savings, some potential savings. The chief identified as one of the options, we don't like any of the options, but as one of the options, reductions in overtime. That's something council asked us to do as long ago as April when we were in here talking about last year's budget. So that was identified as one of the opportunities, and it was a time-sensitive opportunity because we're right now in the middle of one of the heaviest overtime usage times of the year during the holiday season when folks want to be off, and we understand that. But the other side of the coin is, if we wait to come back to you in January, or wait until the end of February, and we don't make the changes in overtime staffing, that money's gone, and there is no opportunity to recoup it. So in our judgment, and it was a judgment call, now was the time to go ahead and implement that. That being said, let me ask Chief Hendricks to come up and kind of give you the rationale for why he recommended or why he identified the areas he identified and what that has led us to at this point and I think the primary reason we're here today. MR. Welcome, Chief. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Bennett. Commissioner Bennett Bennett Thank you, sir, Mr. Vice Mayor, members of the Council. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. I was asking the email request from Council to address brownouts and other issues, or to be prepared to respond to questions about those. Let me, in the interest of time, give you what I believe you want to know from me, and with a little background, I believe that will help us. Why was Station 4 closed, and why was it closed on Saturday? And with a little background information, I'll be happy to get to those points, if that is indeed the meat of what you want to know. Okay. As the commissioner pointed out, our budget for the year is $54.5 million. Of that, 89% is personnel costs. What we were asked to come up with was 5% reduction in that expenditure. That is $2.718 million. We were notified of that November the 20th, I believe, and we were asked to come back with some suggestions and ways that we might achieve that by December the 2nd. We, and by me, I mean I and my executive staff, and in consultation with the shift chiefs and others over an extensive period of time in a relatively short time frame, scrutinized every inch of our budget. We looked first at places for what I would call lapse, and by that I mean that typically money is that the budget is there, your totals don't typically come up, and normally at the end of the year they go back into the general fund. And some of those areas, just by way of example, would be the hydrant rental, of which the commissioner spoke, some of the utility accounts, personnel lapse was a big one, fuel lapse. In this case, we had a little more fuel allocated than we had used on a per month basis. But the clear and glaring elephant in the room, if you will, is the overtime. As you recall, in April, I stood at this podium and did my best to defend why we were using so much overtime. And at that time, I'm not sure that you understood that the only way to keep stations open, if you have vacancies is either to work overtime or to take companies off duty. And that simply is what we are doing at this point in time and how we came to the utilization of our staff reduction plan. So please understand that we didn't take this lightly. There's no fire chief that I know in the country that would want to take a fire company out of service for any reason on any day. that's just a fact. What we did was to look at the overtime, and we divided it kind of into two categories. There are many categories for overtime. We figured that we could use about a third of that of our remaining overtime. We had 1.2 left at the moment that we were asked to do it in November. We had $400,000 that we figured that we could live with, and that would take care of late runs of just mandatory things that we would have no control over. But that if through staff reduction we could realize perhaps as much as $800,000 that we could save the jobs of 32 people. And that very simply, Council, is what we were trying to do. $800,000 divided over 13 pay periods at $54,000 per person. And I'm using a recruit salary plus their benefits plus their turnout year. That comes out to 32 people that we were trying to preserve the jobs of through the use of this overtime. When we were asked to do this in November and up through December, we were estimating that we might could save as much as $200,000 in the period if it were implemented very soon before the early part of January. As the Commissioner pointed out, the holiday season is one of our biggest utilization times of benefit time and therefore overtime. And we knew if we could get an early attack on that, that we could perhaps realize between $100,000 and $200,000 of savings to that pool about which we were speaking. Therefore, we recommended to our commissioner and to the mayor that even ahead of the other decisions that might be made after 30 days or whatever, that if we were to really get a handle on this and to fully benefit from the full $800,000 that we hope to save, it had to happen soon. We know that in January, our benefit time usage will likely go down significantly. January and February are not popular times for vacations, not typical times of travel and so on. And the other thing, the savings, of course, the other saving grace would be that if we were able to retain our recruit class of 26 members, that they would significantly supplement our strength by January the 18th, their first day of expected active duty. For those reasons, we recommended again to the mayor that if we're going to benefit from this, that we need to do it immediately. It had nothing to do with anything other than being time sensitive. And that's why, given the staff reduction plan, and I should comment on that, a staff reduction plan is simply when you either don't have people or you don't have vehicles or whatever the resource might be, this is the order that you take them out of service. And when I started on this job in 1977, there was a staff reduction plan. It perhaps didn't go as deep as what we indicated with this one, But it was always understood which ladder truck, which engine would go out of service first. And as I recall, typically in those days it was probably three to four companies deep. Of course, we don't have many companies. We didn't have nearly as many companies then as we do today. But it is important to recognize that there has always been some sort of staff reduction plan. The staff reduction plan, which calls for Engine 4 to be the first company out of service, is mine. It's mine alone. It's not anyone else in the administration. I took input from the many members of our executive staff and command staff. We looked at a number of factors. I'm sure I'll be happy to respond to questions here, But in terms of which company would be the first one, we felt, and I felt, therefore, ultimately, that Engine 4 would be the best candidate of a lot of terrible options to take out of service. I'd be happy to answer questions beyond that. Thank you, Chief. The council members have signed on to comment, beginning with Council Member Beard, then Lawless, Blues, and Gorton. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I really had a question for the commissioner, and it's out of context with what we're talking about now, so I'd like to pass, and I'll come back and catch him at the end. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you. I have several questions. One of the issues that we've dealt with this year, I've been on council, has been that there's been a large amount of overtime for firefighters due to the fact that there were so many vacancies. We have a training class that's finished and another one coming on. my understanding that that will cut automatically the overtime that is needed to staff the stations. Is that correct? Yes, ma'am. That's true with one caveat that we'll be losing another cadre of folks to service retirement on January the 3rd. So the full class benefit of 26 will be more like 14, 13, or 14. But, yes, there would be a significant benefit. And there's another class ready to graduate, or just graduated? The other class graduated in November. That was 14 people. So that's a total of 20-something extra fireflies. We started the year at minus 41, and that's the number of people that were hired initially. We've had a couple of recruits that did not complete. But I believe the current numbers of those two would be 14 and 26. So if you're running over on overtime, it just seems to be common sense and basic management to hire more people so you don't have to pay the overtime. It sounds like we're making some progress there. Yes, ma'am. And the same goes for the 911 operators, that they're understaffed, creating situations where they can't take vacation time. I'd like to know how much was saved by the closure of Station 4 and 11. I also understand there's an EMS 242 that's in a brownout, and that would be a shift supervisor that coordinates treatment, and a district manager who coordinates men in structure fires, which is a huge safety issue for our firefighters. How much money was saved by Station 4 or Firehouse 4? I never know which to call them. and 11, which I also understand was in a brownout on Harrodsburg Road for 24 hours. Yes, ma'am, and for benefit of the public, a company is usually an engine, a ladder, an emergency care unit, a station may house several or it may house only one. So to say a house or a station, it could be a very different term. Yes, ma'am. $44 per hour is our average overtime rate. $1,100 per day for a 24-hour period. So the closing specifically of Engine 4 should have resulted in $3,300 savings from our overtime budget. Station 11 was, excuse me, engine 11 was temporarily taken out of service from 1,900 hours to 0,700 hours. That would be half of that $3,300 figure or 16. Another question if I, yeah, I've still got some time. It's my understanding that the collective bargaining process has already started and that the firefighters have submitted a plan to the administration which would decrease the amount of raises and uniform allowances that would save about $1.5 million over the next year, year and a half. Is that accurate? I think it's important to delineate the difference. We are not in the midst of collective bargaining at this time. But that proposal has been brought forth to the administration? The local did make a presentation to the mayor, and Commissioner, would you like to speak to that? There was a presentation to the mayor last week, I believe. Unfortunately, it was not at that meeting. But it was presented, as I understand it, as a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. There was no room for discussion, no room for further negotiation. It's debatable, in the end, how much that plan would have saved because of some commitments they asked us to make in exchange for the commitments they were offering. But I think it's safe to say this fiscal year, which is the challenge we're facing today, it would have had virtually no effect, no savings, and potentially could have cost more this fiscal year than we otherwise would have spent. I don't want to get into the details because I really don't think it's appropriate to get into the details necessarily in this forum. But that was the reason in the end that the mayor didn't accept the proposal. Okay, well, maybe I could get that information privately. Council Member Lawless. Oh, I'm sorry. We're a timekeeper, unfortunately. Council Member Blues, we can come back. We've got another question. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chief and Commissioner, for being here for doing the due diligence in this dire situation. The first question I have is, what is the plan going forward in terms of these brownouts or temporary closings to get to that $800,000 or $900,000 figure? Will there be different stations closed here or there, or what will the procedure be? If I may, there's basically two things you've got to do when you have an available amount of money. You've either got to take units out of service on a daily basis and keep personnel, or if you cut personnel through terminating their employment, then there would likely be permanent closures or staffing reductions at various houses. What we chose through our option was to keep people permanently employed. There's a tremendous benefit in that for us in that we have a whole lot invested in each of the class members that are in our recruit class at this time. So I know that's background information. I haven't answered your question yet, but it's important to realize those two differences. Through those, and the brownout is a common term, but it's not the one that we're utilizing. We're simply talking about staffing reductions. And again, so that the public and council may understand the term, blackout would be a permanent closing, brownout would be a temporary closing. So a brownout, as I understand the definition, would be either hour by hour or perhaps day by day would be a temporary closing of a fire company, as opposed to closing one for six months or a year or perhaps forever. Our plan calls for, based on available staffing for that day, a scheduled list of what companies would come out of service and in what order. As I said before, January, February, and early March would likely be days where the reduced staffing plan would not likely have to even occur. As you get into spring break, more popular days of vacation choice and so on, and we get near July the 1st, obviously there's going to be many more days when that staffing reduction plan might be needed. Well, thank you. I know that you're, as you tried to work out this plan, are very cognizant of the predominant concern and criteria, and that's public safety. In any kind of reduction, and I know the public is concerned about this and as our council members, is the question of the risks that are involved here. And I know that whatever reduction you do involves some risks, but you're balancing those against other possible risks. And you're clearly suggesting that the greater risk would be the loss of 32 positions. Absolutely. 32 positions for us. We figure 15 people per company is the relationship under which the people were hired to staff those companies would be over two companies that would, in theory, come out of service more or less permanently or at least until those staffing numbers could be increased. And I do not feel that that's the best plan. If we can live for a day here or there with reduced staffing, I would much prefer that over permanently closing a station. I think our stations are less in number than what we need. Some of you may recall in 2005 we gave a recommendation of adding seven new stations. In fact, we intended to relocate six of our existing stations to better place them to staff and serve the needs of Fayette County. In fact, Engines 4, Station 4, and Engine 11, Station 11, were two of the companies that were recommended for relocation. So I don't ever want to be counted as saying that we need less staffing, either for an hour or for a year or forever. But given the alternatives that I was given, cut your budget, these are the best options that we felt like we could come up with as a staff. Thank you very much. I appreciate that analysis. Council Member Gordon and Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief, thanks for being here. I know that one of the reasons I felt this meeting was important was to gather information because we didn't have the information. And so do I take it from what you said that this was your first choice, or was the mayor given a number of choices from fire, and the mayor made this decision not to put you on the spot, but I think it's important. Was this pretty much what you felt would be the best? This was only one of several options that we suggested, but it was the only one which was time-sensitive in terms of making it happen sooner would affect the amount available to make it happen. Which was important to get a sooner impact. So is Station 4 open today? Yes. Okay. And so these staff reductions, if one netted $33,000 or $4,000, are you thinking then we'll need to do a couple hundred of them, or what's the thinking of that to get to the $800,000? Well, included in that $800,000 were some other things, and we hope it wasn't all through staff reduction. So those things would be doing in-services another way, paramedic in-services and so on that we hope we could accomplish via some other means rather than paying overtime to come back for each and every one of them. But there would be several more company closures, I feel, by July 1st. Okay. And I guess really one of the things that I think is most important is the impact on services, because that's what the constituents care about. And so when a station goes down and is closed for 24 hours, where do those runs go, the EMS and fire runs, and what's the impact on the time that it takes them to make the run and respond? Is there any impact on the insurance ratings? Those kinds of things that relate to safety, because we haven't seen anything about that. You asked a couple of questions. What happens to the run? It goes to the next closest unit that's capable of handling that type of situation, whether it's emergency medical, whether it's fire-based hazardous material, whatever. So that's the next closest unit. For Station 4, the next closest station is engine, ladder, and EC1, Station 1, which is about .74 miles from Station 4. So response time-wise, if that station has no one to respond, then do you go farther out, farther away? Yes, ma'am. So response time could be affected? Yes, ma'am. I have to say, minimally, it could be, yes. We've talked over the years about trying to set a standard for our response time and trying to do better than the national average. And I think this is kind of where the heart of these cuts goes, is to the service to our citizens. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot, because I know you can't know if a station rolls over to another one to take the call, whether they'll be there or not. I understand that's a day-to-day thing. But for me personally, I think that's the biggest concern I have for our constituents is response time and whether our firefighters and EMS can get there in time. And I'm not asking a question and not meaning to put you on the spot, but I think that's really the heart of this. And then my only other question is, is it possible that people at, and I know you don't have a lot of desk jobs. I understand that. I've been around the fire a lot. But are there ways to use non-firefighter, non-paramedic, those folks on the desk? Are we doing as much of that as we can so that we have our trained fire people online? Our staff reduction plan calls for utilizing the firefighters who may be working in some of our adjacent bureaus to actually come to the line. And some of those are actually ahead of Engine 4 and some of them are behind Engine 4. But, yes, we are attempting to utilize that. So bearing in mind that when those people leave those bureaus, the work that those bureaus do, important, necessary work, doesn't get done. I understand that. So many of the things that we do and many of the areas that they support would not be there to do what it is we do. It would simply be making runs to emergencies. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Gordon. Council Member Crosby, then Council Member Stennett and Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I find myself in a situation, and please don't, I am in no way, shape, or form taking this out on you, but I find that I'm extremely frustrated right now. That's the only term I can use to convey the feelings that I have. I do have questions, but I feel like I have to give a little commentary just because I found during the budget process, We had a mayor who told us that it appears we are, Lexington is recession, that we're not recession-proof, but we appear to be recession-resistant. And now, six months later, we are in full-out crisis, and we're having brownouts of fire stations, and everybody is having to turn in, all directors are having to turn in things, and we're in full panic mode, it feels like. and then to learn that during this time when we're closing, we're browning out our fire stations, that our outside agencies have not been asked at the same time that we've asked our divisions, and those are areas that we should be cutting or could be looking at, have not been requested at the same exact time to turn in things. They should be critically looked at the same way we are looking at our government. And so the only way that I can convey my feelings right now is total frustration. That's the only sense of emotion I have, is I'm completely frustrated with our government right now and our administration. Chief, I have handed out to our council a minimum staffing implementation plan. It's dated 12-1509. It has order of out-of-service units, and then it has the actual unit number of personnel created and running total. Can you tell me as of right now today on Christmas Day where you think you're going to be on this list? Do you have a copy of this by chance? I do. You do? Yes, ma'am. The estimates that I had earlier in the day would call for, I believe, through number 12. Is yours enumerated that way? Number 12 on Christmas Day. So can you, for the public, just kind of go through and maybe explain how many that would be browned out or how many that is off? Because this is a pretty large list, it looks to me. Yes, ma'am. Practically speaking, it would cause three engine companies and a ladder company to go out of service for that day. So like Station 4 again, and then would 11 also again, and then an additional going down the list. I just want to make sure the council members understand what you're looking at. It's not only 4 and 11, but there's also another whole list of things that would also be out. So that's Christmas Day. That's a holiday. And just because, you know, many of us are home with families, it's still, we still have emergencies that come up on that day. And I just think we need to understand that there are other people who are out working and things go on, and we're going to have possibly down to number 12 on that list, possibly even worse. That's the best case scenario it looks like on a pretty major holiday with people traveling in our community. As far as the overtime is concerned, one thing that we try to do, I think, and I was just wondering if this helped, when we were on the public safety link for budget, I know that we had many discussions regarding the paramedic training. And has it helped that you were able to hire bodies and they didn't have to go through the paramedic training? Has that shortened the course and you've been able to get people on the line quicker? Yes, it has. Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to follow up on something that Council Member Gorton asked just to make sure I understand this. When you stated that engine four, the cost savings was $3,300 for that brownout day, correct? On average. On an average. So we're not looking at having basically 240 events similar to that to get to the cost savings of $800,000, right? You did state, I may have missed it, you stated that you had other things such as in services that you were looking to. Okay. That's correct. I just want to make sure I understood we weren't trying to do 240 similar brownouts. And that would be over the course of 18 months, right, this implementation plan that you have? The $800,000 would be just to get to July the 1st. Oh, July. Okay, but you, I'm sorry, but you have a plan for 18 months. Is that correct? This plan, and bear in mind this plan can be modified. Okay. There's nothing set in concrete by this plan except by fire administration and approved by the mayor. But the plan is for anything. Let's say that engines, you don't have enough available running engines for whatever reason, or ladder companies or something like that. It's not just for a manpower situation. Or perhaps the number of emergencies that you have exceed the availability of your standard resources, the people that you have when everything is staffed. So this is basically your new minimum staffing plan just for here on out. You just redid it. Reduced staffing. Reduced staffing plan. But you did it in response to what the mayor had asked you to do for the budget reduction. Is that correct? We looked at the one that we had, and we modified and extended the one that we had just to give it a little more depth. and better explain it. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Council Member Stennett, then Council Member Feigel. Thank you. I certainly can appreciate Council Member Crosby's frustration. It's always easy to be on this council or be a mayor of a city that has plenty of money. I remember going back to 2005 when we were buying new land and trying to expand stations and move stations, and now things have changed dramatically. It's easy to paint a picture of doom and gloom. It's easy to look at the numbers, and the numbers speak for themselves. But at the same time, we're all in this together. We all have a bit of this to either help with or support or save on when it comes to the dollars we're all trying to salvage and spend the next six months. Chief, I'll start with you on your plan itself. How long have you had this reduction plan? You said it's always been in place? A reduction plan of some sort has always been in place. This specific one was finalized probably about a week to two weeks ago. We've been discussing it throughout the county. And you took input just from your other assistant chiefs, I assume, not from the rank and file or had any special meeting. You basically, as an executive team, formed the plan. That's correct. And can we get a copy of the plan so that the council understands which stations are browned out and when? Yes, sir. So we have that written out per day, correct? You have all that information? Yes, sir. And really at Councilman Crosby's point, Christmas Day, is that the largest day we're having a brownout? I would anticipate that that would be the most likely day of the year that would create the most chosen vacancies. So in the amount of a disaster or, heaven forbid, more than the current staffing can handle, what's our plan? What happens at that point? If we don't have enough manpower on duty, what happens? Do you have a backup plan for that? The same thing that would happen at any other point in time, and that is to call in off-duty staff. So we have a call number, a paging system, whatever it may be, to get a hold of folks and back that up. Should we be short on staff? Not a paging system. We have an adequate system in place so that the citizens don't have to fear that Christmas Day is a large day, a big day without the numbers there that we need. We have a system. Yes, sir. Commissioner Bennett. I'm reminded, too, that obviously there are a number of communities in close proximity. We have utilized mutual aid on occasions to supplement the needs of the community. Commissioner Bennett, I want to look at all of public safety. A couple of questions. One, what's being done with the police department and corrections as well? No final decisions have been made there. I'll remind you that similar to where fire would have started this fiscal year, police currently has 26 vacant positions unfunded. Corrections has in excess of 30 unfunded positions. So they've been working with not only fewer people, but they've also been challenged to manage their overtime and reduce overtime expenditures. So we have cut overtime in police and corrections as well to this point. And as part of, particularly in police, as part of their reduction plan, overtime reductions are part of that. And the total public safety budget, again, for your department? $150 million. Right. Now, I'll say $150 million. That's personnel and operating. That doesn't include the debt service on any of our vehicles or any of our facilities. But, yes, $150 million. So if we were to choose not to touch public safety at all in this budget reduction plan, Are you all looking at that option to leave the $150 million alone, take the rest of the $129 million and only cut from that? We're looking at all options. So will we see all that? That's all I can say at the moment. I don't know where in the end we'll wind up. But we are evaluating what happens if we cut here and don't cut here. And so I assume that the $12 million, you're just taking the percentage of that $12 million to get the public safety's need, and that's how we back down into the fire situation we're in now? Correct. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. I'll try to make this really quick. I think we've been talking about overtime for quite some time, and I know you'd mentioned that, too, that we had asked for a reduction in overtime. But I'm very confused about how overtime is scheduled. I think what I heard you say, Chief, is that benefit leave, which is vacation, correct? that is higher during certain times of the year, like at Christmas time, correct? Yes, ma'am. Okay, lower in January, February. And this increases our overtime costs because vacation time is scheduled during those holiday periods, increases our overtime costs because we have to get other folks to come in, correct? Correct. Okay. Is there no plan right now where you schedule vacation time or benefit leave? on a kind of an equally, where it equally distributes vacation time out throughout the year? Yes, ma'am. We do have a vacation schedule. they've been working on that for a couple for at least a month I believe to schedule those vacations Well I guess I'm trying to figure out why is it that we're having a more critical situation with overtime right here in December. You said there's more firefighters on leave at this time than normally? Yes ma'am. So bear in mind that I'll try to get my numbers correct. There are 24 benefit slots that are allowed for vacation time. There are six additional slots, and these would be people on a shift, that are backfilled, if you will, by the administration. By contract, if a firefighter has comp time and can find a person of like certification to work for them beyond those 30 positions, there is no limit on how many people can be off. But we have to pay overtime? I have to pay them overtime. Yes, ma'am. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out how we've gotten to this situation where overtime is such a critical issue that we're dealing with and how to fund it. That's a benefit that was negotiated into the contract. Okay. All right. Well, I have, you know, similar concerns about not having proper response time, particularly at this time of the year. But I think we're looking at a much bigger problem here than just, you know, the response time for this time of the year. And I would like to get, you know, more, a little deeper into that maybe in January. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Fio. Council Member Lawless, then Gordon, then Henson. Thank you. I guess I would like to echo Council Member Crosby's frustration. And first of all, the Jefferson Street, it is an area where there is a lot of elderly folks and substandard housing where people are using space heaters and extension cords for Christmas tree lights, which is how my house burned in 1990. and while it doesn't have EMS they do have defibrillators on those trucks the third Street station also is not in my district but covers a lot of my district the third district as well as Woodland so if they're over there when someone's having a heart attack or there's a structure fire minutes count they can be the difference between life and death. And to do this right before Christmas rather than in January, February, or even during is very upsetting to me because four or five minutes, three or four minutes in some of these cases will mean life or death. And how do we put a price on that? And secondly, it was upsetting as a council member, and this isn't your fault. I don't know who dropped the ball there, but as a council member, having the mayor talking about it on TV at noon, and council members weren't made aware of it until a letter was put in our box over break. So I would like to ask, I don't know if it's Commissioner Bennett or Chief, it comes from you or the administration, that council members are apprised of these closing, what impacts, and where it's going to draw. When you talked about, you know, what might extend the response time, and then you talked about going to another county if we had an emergency, that's pretty significant response time delay if your house is on fire and your children are asleep upstairs or you're having a heart attack. So I'm very concerned, and I'm very concerned about closures at this time of year when those two of the major fire hazards, space heaters and Christmas tree lights and extension cords, are being heavily used. And I would like to see if we can get a copy of your other alternative plans other than this one that were rejected or decided that they weren't the best way to deal with this. Thank you very much. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. I just have two follow-up questions based on a couple things I heard said. Chief, can you tell me in a little bit more detail on saving the $800,000, what part of that would be saved by decreasing in services and other expenses, and what part will be saved by these closing, temporary closings of the fire stations? I honestly don't know. I would just have to give you a guess at this moment. We could probably come up with a little more specific recommendation. What's your guess? Is it half and half? I mean, I can't imagine in-service costs $500,000, but maybe it does. I don't know. Just an estimate? I really don't know. Can you get me that, maybe email me that? I would really appreciate it. And then I think, Commissioner Bennett, you mentioned using other communities. And on December 17th, the council did receive a letter about the situation from the mayor, you, and Chief Hendricks, and referred one of the towns that was referred to was Harrodsburg. Well, when I got this letter, I asked my aide to look into some of the outlying communities and how they operate their fire, and Harrodsburg uses, they're not totally paid. They use volunteer firefighters. Now, how would we, I guess I'm very concerned, concerned about how we would go to other communities when some of those other communities operate with volunteer firefighters? The reference to Harrodsburg and the letter council members got was not intended to be a suggestion that we would necessarily rely on them for mutual aid. What it was intended to be was a demonstration that these budget issues are not unique to Lexington. There, as I recall, were at least three examples you were given. Number one, Cincinnati right now is wrestling with laying off police officers and firefighters. They still haven't come to grips with what they're going to do, but that still is a real possibility. I think 47 firefighters and something like 130 police officers. Columbus, Ohio, was faced with laying off a significant number of both police officers and firefighters. And as I understand it, they chose a significant tax increase to avoid that. Okay. I guess that's on the table. So Harrodsburg closer to home, what was reported was that there were days that they would have a total of two firefighters staffing the entire city. That wasn't intended to convey to you that we can go to Harrodsburg anytime we need additional help. What it was intended to convey to you was everybody is wrestling with this, and nobody has come up with a good solution yet. All of the options, admittedly, we don't like any of the options, but we're faced with the dilemma we're faced with, and we've got to come up with a solution. We're trying to come up with the least objectionable options that we can. So are we truly looking, you mentioned going to other communities, are we truly considering that on the list of ways to fill in? And I'll let you speak to that because he has more experience than I. I don't think that's anything that we would look at on a day-to-day basis. But in the event of a catastrophe and we needed additional help, we've offered it to other communities, we would expect to the extent that they can supply some help, that they would help us. Well, it's not intended to supplant what we do day to day. It's my understanding we have that agreement all the time. We do. We have a critical situation. We do. But I was just wanting to know, and you answered, that we're not going to look at that on a day to day basis. On a routine basis, no, ma'am. Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Henson, then Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I know when we went through the budget process and we talked about alleviating the problem with the overtime for the fire by the new training classes, correct? So a new class graduated in November? Yes. And are they now active firefighters? Yes. So did that relieve some of the overtime? fund? Yes. And then you have another class graduating soon? Mid-January. And will that also relieve the overtime? That will be a great help, yes. Do you know by how much? Well, if you've got if it costs $1,100 a day in overtime then each day one of those employees works, saves you $1,100 in overtime. If you were going to backfill that position each of those days. Have you calculated that into your budget cut? That was calculated, actually, Council Member Henson, back when we were enacting the budget, that was calculated to pay the salaries for those firefighters that are graduating now. So that overtime savings was used to hire those firefighters earlier this fiscal year. So we're on track with that, is what you're saying, right? Yes. Do you know what the average time that a firefighter spends on runs, has that ever been calculated? They work a 24-hour shift. Yes, ma'am. And of that 24 hours, how much time is spent on runs? It's quite varied depending on their assignment. You all see the emergency care units running across town quite frequently, and those people typically make probably between 12 and 20 runs a day. So much of their 24-hour period is spent making runs. including fire runs and other types of emergencies besides the emergency medical. A person in a more remote part of town on an engine company, perhaps on the periphery of the county, would probably make fewer than that. So to say Engine 4, for example, we looked at, since we were very concerned about that, has an average of about a six-run day. Six runs a day. But then that could add up to a certain amount of time, correct? I mean, they might. And, again, it depends on what happens. Yes, there would be an average that would be available. I know of no such calculation where we've done that. But depending on whether it was assisting at an emergency medical run or fighting a structure fire for three or four hours or perhaps any other assignment that might be a lengthy period. My next question was going to be if it varied from location to location depending on the fire station. So I think you already answered that. by saying if they're in a remote, depending upon the location of the fire station, some stations may have more runs than others, correct? Or did I hear you wrong? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Crosby, I don't have anyone else signed up. After Council Member Crosby, then we could go to the public comment. We have four members, citizens who have signed up for public comment. Oh, Council Member Martin, you're back. All right, sir. Would you like to go before me? Council? Would he like to go before me since I've already? Council Member Martin. Are you sure? Okay, because I have a question for Joe or Shea, and since they all have to come up, if you want to. Go ahead. It's an easy one. Yes. Yeah, my question is when you were asking the different directors, or when you all were discussing the budget cuts and asking directors to come up with the 5%, did you all determine that 5% was just the number you had to target to make what we needed for our projections? Or did you have any discussions that perhaps you could do 10% maybe with one division and 2% with another division. I guess my question is, why do we just do 5% across the board? And the reason why I'm leading to this is, well, I'll let you answer the question. 5% was what we, in total, needed to get to to address the $11.5 million anticipated shortfall. We asked everybody to do as much as they could without negatively impacting their operation to the point where they would not be able to do their jobs. So some directors may have offered up more, some with very small operations, like in public works maybe, where they just didn't have the capacity to do 5%. Maybe somebody else did 6% or 7%. But as a department, public works came with at least 5%. So the average across government you requested was 5%, and what we will see in January is perhaps maybe 2% somewhere and maybe 8% somewhere else? In total, we're trying to get to at least the percentage that would cover the perceived shortfall that we're anticipating, 11.5 million. Okay. I just ask that just because it seems to me like there would have been some kind of priority set, obviously, because our charter requires us to provide certain services. And getting back to what Council Member Gorton said, obviously public safety is a huge one of those. And I was just wondering, during the process, it would appear that you all would have set some type of goals for determining which divisions had to cut. if there was any type of priority set for which divisions had to cut based on our charter and what we have to provide per charter. So that's why I asked that question. Thank you so much. Good question. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner Bennett, I have not been here for many years, and some of the history of how we got into this budget is new to me, and so I might have some questions that might extend to previous budget cycles. When was the collective bargaining agreement for the firefighters approved? Was that in 2008? We, I think, are on the second round. I want to say the first one was in 2005. But in the current one, current contracts in 2008. Current contracts for firefighters, lieutenants, and captains was 2008. Majors was 2009. And do you remember how much that was? I do not. It would sound like about $127.5 million. Does that sound about right? You're talking about in terms of the increase or their overall personnel? Their overall budget for three years. I don't remember that number, Councilman Martin. Okay. Is there someone here who might be who knows that number? Chris, do you remember the number? One of my questions is there's a lot of concern that this decision was made without the approval of the council. And I'm trying to understand the level of interaction that this council has had in the past. Did the council approve the collective bargaining agreement? Council chose not to approve it, not to take any action on it. And it's my understanding that Council Member Lane made a motion for this council to approve a $127 million collective bargaining agreement, and that was tabled. Is that? I recall him asking the council to approve the agreement. Again, I don't remember the dollar amount. Okay. But the council chose not to do that. Is that accurate? That's accurate. So in this case, we have the closing of two fire stations for one day. In that case, we have basically a $127 million check written by one individual in the city of Lexington that would bind the council for three years. And this council refused to play any role, a supervisory role, or to consent to that. Is that correct? That's correct. Now, given the amount of concern I've heard today about the closing of these two stations, I guess has there been other closures of stations in the past year or two or three years? There have actually station four, the same one we're talking about today, was closed for two consecutive months. Two consecutive months for 60 days, not one day. As a result of having been struck by a vehicle and being structurally unsound. So it was being renovated during the 60-day period. It was being repaired, yes. Did the council, I guess, did we have a special meeting about the closing of that station during that time? No, sir. But yet today here, we're three days before Christmas, and we're taking time away from our families to talk about the closure for one day. And I guess I would expect there to be similar outrage when someone has suggested that, I guess, Fire Station 4 and Fire Station 11 be closed. is it accurate to say that the fire department's capital plan called for the closure of stations 4 and 7? I think you alluded to that earlier. It called for the relocation of them, yes. And what was the reason for that? To get, and Chief and his staff developed the plan before I came back on the scene, but basically it was to enable better coverage county-wide, to better locate the stations to take best advantage of them. And did I understand from the, I guess, a new release or something like that from the mayor today that the station four particularly is within a mile and a half, mile 1.6 of four different stations? That's correct. Okay. One of the concerns I have is that all the concerns that have been expressed about the closure of these two stations for one day, and I realize there may be others, but that we are hamstringing ourselves from actually building new stations where we really need them. If, in fact, my colleagues up here on the horseshoe are correct, we couldn't possibly afford to lose these two stations because they are so crucial to the fire and safety of our citizens. But yet the fire department has included those in their capital plan for closure so that new stations can be built where we actually do need them. Is that accurate? Chief? I much prefer to use the term relocation because it doesn't mean that those stations are poorly placed for everything that we do. But for specifically the relocation of Engine 4, we recommended it move approximately three-quarters of a mile to the intersection of 4th and Newtown. and for Station 11 that Engine 11 would better serve us at the airport on Versailles Road. But I guess if they can't be afforded to move, if we're so concerned about all the things and having lost 15 seconds or a minute or three minutes or five minutes, then that may not be possible. And I think it is unfortunate that my fellow council members have chosen this particular thing to call a special meeting about, because I support and hope that our budget would be in a position where we can build some new stations and relocate these. But I think this sets a dangerous precedent that we would not be able to do that. Chief, I'm going to try to go on quickly. Thank you, everybody. Councilmember Martin, at the five-minute, I have the unpopular role of the timekeeper and the five-minute. Is there a timer around that we can keep track of it? Yeah, it was on here. I'm sorry. It's not on mine. Sorry. Well, let me make a final thing. May I make a closing statement? Yes, sir. Go right ahead. We all have to do this together. We ran the horseshoe. We in this room, all the firefighters. The way I understand the budget, if we don't spread the pain as far as we can across all the ranks, there are going to be layoffs. That's the way I understand the budget. We either raise new taxes or we spread the pain as thinly as possible. And the divisiveness in the politics that's going on up here is going to make it more likely that folks are going to be laid off. because what we need to do is work together and build consensus for a common solution to this. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can I make a point of order regarding a comment that was made about the collective bargaining? Vice Mayor, I said quietly while my other council members made lots and lots of statements, and I think I had the, you know, I'm within my rights as a council member to finish my statement. The chair will acknowledge the point of order. It's point of order. When you make a false statement, we have an attorney general opinion that the council cannot approve the collective bargaining. The attorney general said we cannot approve collective bargaining agreements. We are not allowed to vote on them. It's an attorney general opinion. So I was just making that point of order. That's why we do not vote on it. Thank you. Mr. Vice Mayor, that is a rebuttal that is not a point of order. A point of order relates to whether someone is entitled or not entitled to speak. All right. Mr. Vice Mayor, I might say that our charter does require that all contracts be approved by the council. All right. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Council Member James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief, several have referred. I think the mayor made a statement in his press release or the letter that came out by e-mail, and Council Member Martin has also said this, engine four that was shut down. was that engine not moved to another location and folks still worked? I mean, it was the station was closed, but there were still folks operating that originally worked at Engine 4. Is that correct? No, ma'am. There were no people operating from Station 4 on Saturday. Okay. I guess we may hear from some folks later about that. And does a mile and a half make a difference in response time? Perhaps I misunderstood your question. Okay. When the car was, the vehicle struck the station on Jefferson. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you meant on Saturday. No, no, no. No, when the station was closed for two months because the vehicle hit the station and closed it, that company was still operating with their three-person minimum staff out of station one. Okay. Okay, and that's very important to know because I think that's being utilized as an opportunity to say, hey, it's been shut down before, so what's the big deal? But this is a little bit different than that because it was still in operation. I guess they were still servicing the same area that they would typically service. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And does a mile and a half make a difference in response time? It certainly can. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief, I've got one simple question. I was just curious. Can you tell me, first of all, what the schedule is for Station Number 4? It will be operating some, correct? Or is it closed completely? No, ma'am. It will be closed per this plan as staffing allows or as staffing mandates available staffing. So how often will it be staffed? There could be several days over the next week to ten days. Beyond that, my guess is that it would probably be in service most of the next three months. I'm concerned not only with the public safety of the residents that live around or in close proximity to the station, But like when there are special events, like at Rupp Arena? I don't know if that station, I would think that station would respond to Rupp Arena. Typically that is within Engine Forest District. Okay. They're first in district. There are other stations that are similarly close. Station 6 is actually closer in distance. Which is Marino? It's upper at Scott Street. Okay. South line with Scott. But are things like that taken into consideration? I'm sorry, as far as what? Like large events occurring and basketball games. The basketball games specifically would not call for Engine 4 to do anything specifically different than to be in there. Unless there was an emergency there. That's correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Chair. Council Member Blues and Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to make the observation in partial response to Council Member Martin's comments, that the purpose of this meeting is not to take a position or to tell the Division of Fire how it should be run, but to do what we've done here, and that is to get information that we did not have in a timely manner, I think, from the administration, not only for the benefit of the council, but also for the benefit of the public. As Commissioner Bennett observed, there are no attractive alternatives here, and we're trying to work with the best alternatives in that particular context. And it's important not only today that we understand the situation, the choices that were open, the reasoning behind the choices that have been made, But we also need to understand that going forward over the next several months. And so I'm glad that we have had this opportunity, and I appreciate the fact that Commissioner Rumpke, that Director O'Meara, Chief, that you have been here, and Commissioner Bennett, to help us understand better, because we do need to be involved in this process going forward. The public will hold us responsible as well as the administration for decisions that are made. And I hope that as we do enter the next several months and look at our economic picture dollar by dollar, that we will be involved, that we will be informed so that we can all work together to weather this difficult period. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member McCord, then Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree with Council Member Blues' assessment that a day like today is good for everybody up here and out there and folks watching because it allows you to get past some of the things that kind of fly around that can be confusing. Just so that I'm clear, I know that Council Member Senate Chief had asked for kind of a day-by-day, what's the brownout plan if that's the route that is ultimately decided to go upon. But we've thrown around Station 4 and Station 11 and so forth, and the general population has absolutely no idea where those are and so forth. Can you just speak exactly where 4 is, where 11 is, and any others that are kind of on that top end that we've thrown around, just in location, please? Sure. Station 4 is at 246 Jefferson Street between 2nd and 3rd on the east side of the street. Station 11, probably most closely associated as being near St. Joseph Hospital, is actually what would probably be about the 1,200, 1,400 block of Harrodsburg Road. Station 22 we talked about as well would be in Veterans Park off Tates Creek Road. Like I say, we've kind of thrown 4, 11, 22 around as numbers on the front end of this, and while people are watching, we certainly want folks to know what we're talking about not just talking code, so I appreciate that. But again, I do appreciate everybody's interest in figuring this out. And as Council Member Stenet said, we're all in this together. I mean, everybody in this room, us up here, it's not an us versus them, whoever that is. And it's going to take a lot of creativity and doing things differently and being good stewards with whatever we've got. But again, I would reiterate that there's a lot of other places where I'd rather not be than Lexington, Kentucky. There's a lot of places where, you know, they're not in as good a situation as we are and have as good a people at the table as we do sitting here. So, again, we can really let this thing get frustrating. And I think Council Member Crosby said, you know, that's kind of her mood. But at the same time, while that's certainly one side of the coin, if you flip it over, we've got a great opportunity to work together and tell a pretty good story. And I would say that folks watching and folks sitting in the audience, I know we all have opinions on where we can save and where we can find opportunity. I would welcome that. And maybe not so much with a negative spin on, well, have you looked at these people over here and this and that and the other, but rather have we thought about this. And here's something we could revisit because the one thing about this time is let's not waste a crisis. We're in a crisis, so let's not waste it. It creates tremendous opportunities, and bottom line is there are no sacred cows in a crisis, and we can talk about everything, and everything is on the table, but I do appreciate everybody here, and I'd rather be in Lexington, Kentucky, than anywhere right now and working through this, and we look back as our legacy that this is something we did together, and we're all in leadership roles right now. So it's time for leadership to all step up, so I'm glad to be here with you. Council Member Martin. I pass. Thank you. All right, sir. We're then prepared for public comment. There are four members of the audience that have signed up for public comment. Mr. Miracle, Mark Blankenship, Chris Bartley, and Charissa Crobo. Mark Blankenship is going to donate his time to me. I tried to get this under three minutes. You said I've got enough hot air for two people. I have the unpopular duty of notifying the three-minute limit, so we've got six then. It won't take six. Thanks. Thank you all for showing up today, by the way. Good afternoon, council members, vice mayor, fellow firefighters, brothers and sisters, chiefs. My name is Wade Miracle, and I'm a captain assigned to Engine 4. I've been with the fire department for 15 years and have had the honor of addressing this council on three separate instances over the past decade concerning firefighter issues. I feel that as an officer of Engine 4, it's my responsibility to educate you as to why we shouldn't close firehouse number 4 or Engine 4 for even a day. Others today have discussed the monetary issues and the domino effect of the other surrounding fire companies when you shut down Engine 4 for the detrimental increase in response times, but I want to talk about another side of the issue, the human side. If you think about it, fire stations are really about neighborhood ownership and pride, just like the pride that we have in our neighborhood schools. No matter where you live, everybody knows where their neighborhood fire station is located. It's a place of safety, and it provides a sense of security. In fact, one would think that an open firehouse would be supposed to be a constant in the ever-turbulent changing world of city government. When teachers call us to set up a visit, they don't ask for any company. They ask for the company that's just right down the road or around the corner. Why? Ownership and pride. I've served at seven different firehouses during my career, six of them on campus or downtown. And I can honestly say that Firehouse No. 4 is one of the last true neighborhood stations. I'm a people person and I love to sit outside and interact with the residents. And I can proudly proclaim that we have an interesting and eclectic mixture of clientele in our district. From rich to poor, from homeless to millionaires, we've got shotgun homes on one street. And just right around the corner, we've got three-story mansions. We have Transylvania University, Eastern State Hospital, the Florence Crittenden Home, Rupp Arena, the Hilton, the Hyatt, the Hope Center, the Salvation Army, Tower Plaza, half of downtown Lexington, and a plethora of packed bars on a weekend, just in our first due district. We may have a small district, but we have the largest mixture of diverse buildings and interesting characters in the city. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Newberry and Chief Hendricks when they say that safety won't be compromised by closing our company, Just like everyone else, I know my first due district better than I do my second due, my third due, or my fourth due. It's just not about knowing the quickest route to the scene. It's about knowing where the elevator locations are, stairwell locations, roof access, sprinkler shutoffs, other high-risk hazards, and which residents need just a little bit of extra help. That's what makes a good company, knowing your district and knowing the people within the district. Firehouse number four is a neighborhood firehouse. Did you know that we have a young lady who has faithfully called or stopped by the station every day for the past 10 years just to check on us? Why? Because we're her station, ownership and pride. We have a residence who bring us their mail because they can't read or write, but they trust us enough to make sure that they can get their bills paid on time. Ownership and pride. When you close our firehouse, many of our residents, especially from Tower Plaza, will not be able to go to the next firehouse to get their blood pressure checked. They don't have the vehicles or the means to do it. We are the Phantom Company. We are Engine 4. We're the oldest firehouse in town. We've been serving our neighborhood and Lexington proudly since 1904. While we may have a small district by someone's standard, we rank consistently as one of the busiest companies in town, both in actual number of fires and overall run volume. We average about 200 runs per month. That is, if you at least keep us operational. Last night I made 10 runs. We love our district and we know our residents. Please allow us to keep on serving them daily for another 100-plus years. And in closing, I look at this issue from a four-sided point of view. As a resident of Fayette County, it frightens me to think that you're going to close the fire station, even for a day. As a taxpayer, it frustrates me thinking about the mismanagement of my taxpaying dollars at work. As a captain of the station that you're thinking about closing, it disgusts me knowing that the safety of my constituents is being compromised. But as a father, I'm just glad to know that at least it's not the firehouse protecting my family at night that you're closing. Thank you, and I would like to invite each one of you to come and ride the real firefighting company. That's the Vote Real House. That's what we call ourselves. Just for a day, and you will get to meet some of the interesting characters, whether it's at the station or out on the streets. And we'll fix you something good to eat, fatten you up. Thank you. Thank you, Captain. Thank you. Thanks. We want to help. We'll pass them out for you. Thank you, sir. Chris, is anybody giving you time? Are you going to do the three minutes? I think I'm going to do the three minutes. I can't follow that. I'm sorry. It's pretty good. I do want to update a couple of things I've heard today. First of all, Cincinnati heard a bunch of layoffs. They found a way to have no layoffs in the city, have no union concessions, but they did find the mayor did decide to take 10 unpaid days of leave. They passed their budget just a couple days ago. So if they can do it, we can do it. Also, with collective bargaining, it is protected under state law, and that contract supersedes any code and ordinance that's in this city, and it is considered state law. Again, this little program here is just projections. It's not reality, and when somebody calls because their house is on fire or they're having a heart attack, this is what it means. It's nothing. That's all it is. before you have a proposal that this union gave to the mayor on Friday. It is a big concession that we were willing to make and pretty much extending the contract for one year. We are due a uniform allowance increase this January. We were going to defer that for 18 months. As you can see, it saves $223,000. There are, as Chief Hendricks noted, there are some retirements coming up January. You're not in the process of hiring anybody, so you know you're going to get those savings right there. That's around $511,000. And then I would recommend that you hire a class pretty soon because you're just going to end up in the same overtime problem if you don't. The big caveat is that we proposed, we get a 3% raise in July. And we are proposing that firefighters, lieutenants, and captains delay that raise for one year. 2.75% for the majors, which would include all the assistant chiefs and battalion chief salaries as well, to delay those raises for a year as well. This would be a savings of $1.234 million in FY11. I keep hearing about this six-month deal, and I keep hearing it's either we're okay for this month or this six months, or we're all worried about 2011. We made a proposal to cover 2011. I think, first of all, it saves our firefighter jobs and also helps with the jobs of everybody in the city government. I don't think anybody should be laid off. For these concessions, I did ask for some stuff. I know. There is no reduction in personnel, no layoffs at all, and no brownouts, and to keep the emergency care units at three. All I'm asking for is to keep what we've got. There is no increase in this budget. It's what is already in the budget. That's all I'm asking for, all in the interest of public safety. Chris. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Next, the final member of the audience that has signed up is Charissa Crovo. Sorry, I hope I don't embarrass my in-laws. Sure, could you pull that? Yeah, please. Yeah, thank you. A little vertically challenged here. Give us your name and your address for the record. Thank you. My name is Sureisa Crobo. I live at 3279 Roxburgh Drive, Lexington, Kentucky. A lot of the things that I was going to talk about have already been addressed, but I am a teacher here in Lexington and I teach citizenship and economics, so it's a little scary to see all the things that are going on. And my students ask me about everything that's going on, and they're like, well, that's not right. That's not fair. And so, you know, they can't come and speak, and so I told them I would come speak for them. My husband also happens to work on the fire department. But as a citizen, it's terrifying to think that, you know, we're fighting over money, we're fighting over these little things, but we still spend money on things that we don't really need. When I looked at the budget from last year, and, you know, my class and I went through the budget and looked at all the things we're spending money on. And not that I want to knock, you know, the arts or things like that, but, you know, I think that, you know, some of the things, there are other things that are expendable, just like Council Member Crosby was saying, you know, we're talking about cutting government positions, but yet we still have other things that we haven't looked into about cutting. So I just would appreciate the council to maybe think about cutting other programs first. As a teacher, I don't want to cut the arts, but I'd rather not have someone's house burned down or have somebody die or see anybody else lose jobs when they're already understaffed and put my husband and other people's lives more at risk than they already are. I know they signed up for a risky job, but cutting positions or going down in numbers, not having enough people, I don't think that that's the answer. and I'll cut it off there because I know you guys have been here long enough. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Crovo. Before I ask for a motion to adjourn, does any council member have anything more to say? Hearing none, yes, sir. It'll be all right. Yep. Yes, sir. Thank you. tax, 2.25%, and the payroll taxes of 2.25%, my businesses are laying people off. We cannot afford to say yes to everything, and I would ask you on behalf of the citizens to consider and think about saying no. Not everybody gets raises. I've got good clients who haven't had raises for their employees for three years, you know, and it's certainly not in the offering next year. They don't have a collective bargaining agreement. We can't do this, and we need you guys to represent us, as well as the firefighters, the police, garbage, whoever else it is you represent. Keep in mind, we're the ones that pay a salary, and we need some help from you guys. So, yeah, I'm a little nervous, but I hope I get my point across that 55% of the budget is untouchable. Why? If I go to my client and I say, look, you know, you're paying a hell of a lot in salaries. Benefits. Benefits of defined benefit plans. What a nice thing that is. Our public can't afford it. Okay. I doubt Gray Construction has a defined benefit plan. Maybe they do. I doubt it. Used to probably. A lot of employers did. We've all gone away from it. We can't afford it. So 55% of our budget, we're looking for $12 million. I bet you you could get a good business person in here. Mr. Gray is a good business person. I bet you you could get a good business person in here. He could find $12 million real quick. You know, he'd look at a defined benefit plan to start with. He might have to say no to collective bargaining somehow. And you guys may have to say no. You say we can't afford three and a half minutes on a fire call. I don't know if we can or can't. But you say every minute counts. If you take that to the extreme, we have to have a fire department on every road. Okay? We are making judgments about how long we'll tolerate for a run. Okay? If we have to spend another 90 seconds, that's what we have to do, you know, and that may be what's involved in saying no. So thank you for your time. I know I wasn't scheduled, but I appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Thanks. Before I ask, I put a motion to adjourn. I just want to acknowledge everyone that's come here today, members of the administration, the mayor's staff, members of the public safety community, the public, and the council members. We're here on a holiday. In this exercise of democracy, sometimes it's inconvenient but necessary. Thank you all very much. Is there a motion to adjourn? There's a motion by Council Member Gorton and a second by Council Member Stennett. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. We are adjourned. Thank you.