We are here on Thursday afternoon at 4 o'clock as opposed to Tuesday afternoon at 3 because of his funeral. But I think it would be appropriate since this is the first time the council has convened since his death that we pause for a moment of silence before we begin our work. So if you would please join me. Thank you. I know his family will continue to appreciate your thoughts and prayers in the coming weeks as well. Is there any public comment on any issue that is on our agenda for today? Seeing none, we will move ahead. We have a docket to approve. Do I hear a motion to do so? I have a motion by Council Member Gorton and a second by Council Member Blues to approve the docket for this evening's meeting. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We also have a summary to approve from April 27. Do I hear a motion? I have a motion by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Gorton to approve the summary. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Is there a motion on the budget amendments? I have a motion by Council Member Gorton and a second by Council Member Stennett to approve the budget amendments. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. I just wanted to bring a little frivolity to the meeting this afternoon. Motion carries. We have some new business items. Do I hear a motion? I have a motion by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Henson to approve the new business items. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about item I. It has to do with the agreement for collection services for delinquent fines, taxes, and fees. I apologize for not contacting you in advance. I just wondered if you could just talk a little bit about does this replace the current way we're doing this or is this in addition to and why would we prefer to go this method rather than what we currently use or do we currently use this for collection? We do not currently use this company. This is in response to an RFP for a government-wide collection service, and I would say it's in addition to what we're doing now. We had a collection service for just EMS billing. And many, many years ago, sewer user before that was added to the water bill. In addition to that, the law department takes on certain referrals and has procedures that they could address as to how they go about it. We felt that a government-wide concentrated effort would be in addition to what we're doing now and would benefit to make sure that everyone's paying their fair share. Okay. And I'm guessing you'll be following it along to see how it's working and if necessary, we'll amend agreement if necessary. The contract's there, and it's three one-year renewables, I believe, is the usual standard contract. They have embedded in their contract monthly reporting and tracking. We will have information that we can give you as to their effectiveness. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Any further questions on the items of new business? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving the new business items, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. This was originally going to be a report out in the motion I made last week that would report that action taken out in the work session this past Tuesday, so that would be on the docket for tonight. But the law department is working on some things to reconcile the differences. There's other things in the council rules that need to be adjusted if that were to pass. We don't need to do anything with it. Any questions for Council Member Myers? I believe Commissioner Rumke and Revenue Director Mr. O'Meara were scheduled to give an update on some revenue projections and perhaps some other matters, so we'll turn the floor over to you. Thank you. At the last COW, we were asked to come back and do a deeper dive on all of the items that we had or that the council had approved but was not bonded with our previous bond issue. Last October, November, December on into January, we had conversations about all of the capital items that had been approved for FY10. They totaled approximately $114 million plus the distillery district that was added in addition to that. We went to market with approximately $61, $63 million worth of bonding, so that left several projects that went approved but unfunded. So what you have before you today is the listing of the projects from FY10 that did not get bonded with the capital bond issue that we did earlier this year. The other question that the council had was what were the priorities that were set if in fact we did a second bond issue in the spring, should we have revenue, should revenues have come in higher than what we were anticipating and we were so motivated to go back to market. And again, these are per my notes and Director O'Meara's notes. If you will notice in front of you, there were actually three items that I had specific notes on that the council had put on that let's consider that in April contingency list. And those three items were, and this was the order that I had them listed in, but I have to tell you, I don't know if it was just because we talked about them in this order or if you all actually had ordered them in this way. I had number one was the million dollars for the park trails. I had as number two the infill development, which was actually from 2008 and that was two million dollars. And then number three was the stormwater repair from 2009 that had been carried forward and that was a million dollars. Now you'll see other comments in the comments section just for your information. But that's what you had asked Director O'Meara and I to come back to the CAL with. So those are for your information and consideration as you lay that against what we have brought forward in the mayor's proposed budget. And we did bring you a copy of that information that was presented last Tuesday to the CAL and Bill and I are happy to answer any questions you might have. Questions for Commissioner Rumke. Council Member Stennett. On the contingency list that we created back in November, one of the items, the million dollar stormwater bond, if we were to bond that, where would we pay back that bond from? We pay it back from the revenues that we're collecting from the stormwater fee through that budget? Or would you all try to plug it into the general fund budget? Well, we've had a lot of conversations about that. If we had the ability to pay for it out of stormwater, that's where we would do a reimbursement to the general fund. So we'd have the ability to do that assuming those dollars were there. I mean, through the Water Resources Committee, there are extra dollars right now that we're not ready to spend that could be used for that. That's correct. But we have not, you all have not identified that yet, the exact number? No. And what would be, you know, if the debt service would be on the million dollars? What would be due in FY11? Have we calculated that on any of these for that matter? I mean, I think that's a big consideration because whatever interest payment we're going to have to make in FY11, we need to know that if we're going to approve this. If you can give us a couple seconds, we can probably throw something together for you here just in a general rule of thumb. Okay, that'd be great. Sure. As we're talking about this. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. My question relates to Council Member Stennett's question. And I don't know if Mr. O'Mara is in the house. Oh, you're right in front of me. Sorry. You might remember this, Bill. When we were doing the financial model for the water quality fee, we had built in a certain time period of money to collect, if you will, which would give us the ability then to go forward and, I thought, bond projects. And we couldn't start out and bond right straight away because we had to show that we were having the revenue and had it collected. And so I guess in relation to Council Member Stennett's question, are you were you referring to bonding out of current stormwater monies or water quality fee future? And you might correct me if I'm wrong. FY11 stormwater collections. Okay. But isn't there a certain amount of revenue we have to bank before we can Let me talk about the assumptions at that time versus what we're talking about now. Close, but they're not exactly the same. When we were building the financial model, the forecast for using the fee, the question was, could that revenue fund issue bonds? So to have a revenue bond issued solely on the fees generated from the water quality, then the recommendation was rating agencies are going to want to see a fund balance and want to make sure that you can make a certain amount of debt reserve before any fund bond was issued. So it would take about three years for through that model to build up a debt reserve balance to prepare you to to issue a revenue bond issue from that. What is being talked about today is a geo general obligation bond being issued based on the full credit of all of the kind of government basic basically the general fund, then the general fund charging a portion of debt service to the water quality fund to reimburse the general fund for the total debt service of the total issue. If I totally confused you. No, I understand perfectly because I was pretty invested in the process. So I think what you're telling me is that that there's been a change. And so I guess my first question would be, are we still banking money in order to do revenue bonds out of the water quality fees? And if we're not, why did we change what the council saw and based its fee on two questions? And this is Bill O'Meara's perception of today's conversation. I don't think we're recommending the second. We're answering the question of council members. My question is based on what you just said about revenue bonds. Are we still banking money in the water quality fund with the anticipation that in three years we'll sell revenue bonds to cover project? Since the revenue didn't start until the end of January, it's really too early to tell on whether that component of the original forecast the revenues would be there. You have to have a year to know whether your forecast comes true to actual. So it's too early to say we're banking money for that. I guess it's more of a. OK, then is our policy to follow the original financial model to. You remember, there's a line item in there that we said we will start building up revenue, anticipating revenue bonds in the future. And my only question is. Have we changed that so that we're not thinking we will go for revenue bonds out of that? I don't know of any change. OK, I was just answering the question that Councilmember Stenet. OK, so the what Councilmember Stenet was referring to, then the money to pay for this would be simply reimbursed from the water quality fee, but not necessarily taking away from the revenue we're collecting, if you will, anticipating future revenue bonds. Well, I don't think you can assume both. I mean, if you're going to charge the water quality fee for the share of the geo issued bond, that's an expense to the water quality. Which in theory would then be in place of that building fund balance, if I'm understanding what's being talked about. Well, so there has been a change in looking at the financial model for that since it was approved by Council. It sounds like. I'm saying Council is discussing two questions. If I could add a quick comment, because I understand where you're coming from here, I think what I think what we're trying to point out is if in fact Council decided to do this million dollars, we have several options and the options on the table are we could do a general obligation bond and pay for the sewer with general fund money. And we might have all kinds of philosophical issues around that, but we could do that. We could physically do that. The second option for us is to do a general obligation bond and then charge that portion of the debt service to the storm sewer, the water quality. The third option is to not do that and decide not to do the storm sewer and wait until we can bond under the do a revenue bond out of that fund. To your point, as we have enough revenue accumulated that we could demonstrate, we could go to the market and bond there or there could be a hybrid. And I think that's what Bill was trying to explain, Council Member Gordon, is that if in fact Council decided they wanted to move forward on this million dollars, we might do the general obligation bond and charge that debt service back to the fund. But maybe it's just a one-time thing. Because if you keep doing that, to your point, then we're never going to accrue enough revenue to be able to float the bonds out of that revenue fund. So I think it's several different options. And so he was trying to answer what Council Member Stinnon had asked. But I do think that the Council has several alternatives should we move forward on this particular item or any of those related types of items. So we're really here to present all of the options so that you all can make a good decision around that. And if I may answer the question about debt service, assuming a 5% rate, which we've been very fortunate to be under 5% as we've gone to market, for every million dollars that we would bond, if it was a five-year life, it would be $230,000 annually in debt service. If it's a 10-year life, it's $130,000. Gosh, I'm getting old. 15-year, it's $95,000. 20-year, $80,000. $25,000. $70,000. And $30,000 is $65,000. So that kind of gives you a little rule of thumb for every million dollars. And again, that's at 5%, and we've been very fortunate to finance much lower than that. But we just happened to have the little handy card up here to be able to give you some context. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Furthering this discussion, the differential between a GO and a revenue bond as far as rate is concerned? As far as, I'm sorry, rate? Is that what you said? Ryan, what have you seen? I'm going to ask our Budget Director, Ryan Barrow, to come up since he's just left the municipal sector and can probably comment on some of our surrounding municipalities. I think we've seen a substantial difference. Traditionally, GO versus revenue, substantial difference. Bringing it more to the level that we're talking at, we would have an established fund, general fund of the city that we could issue general obligation out of. Lexington's probably the best rated in the entire state. For this specific fund, it would be a revenue bond that is new, doesn't have cash reserves currently, and doesn't have a proven revenue stream. So in this particular instance, off the top of my head, we're talking 200 basis points, potentially more. Two percent, I apologize. Two percent, maybe three percent in terms of the way we would sell this in the market, in the credit, in the way it would be underwritten would be a substantial difference. Well, doesn't that have to be thrown into the mix to determine whether we're going to go one direction or another or a hybrid or all of the above? It absolutely does. I won't ask for simultaneous equations or anything like that right now. That was a whole piece that had not been spoken. I appreciate you bringing that up too. There are a lot of factors that we need to be considering on all of these items. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I'm just curious, is there anything unique about this project that would warrant deviating from policy or deviating from what we've all understood about the water quality fee, that we weren't going to take anything to deplete that fee? Is there anything unique about this project that could justify doing that? And is there some way that we can ensure that this won't be the first of many projects? I am not as familiar with the specifics of this particular bond project. I don't know if, is Charlie Martin here? No. If we could get back to you on that, we're happy to follow up with the council on this particular item, because I don't have the details on this particular storm sewer project. I think my concern is that if we approve this one, how soon would they be coming back to us with another project to be funded through the water quality fee? And if we continue to do that, then it's never going to accumulate to a point where we can issue bonds on that. You're absolutely right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Just to kind of answer Council Member Feigl's question, that $1 million wasn't necessarily for a particular project, but there is a project that stormwater would use it on. That's the bond again was approved two years ago. And that's why it's before us today. It's not a unique thing or something new to change in the policy. It was approved for stormwater to use however they deemed to use it. The other thing that would probably prohibit them from coming back to us, in my opinion, from being on the Water Resources Committee, other members can chime in, is we're reevaluating the whole priority list right now. So there are no other projects yet. We're going through that process, as we said we would, during the stormwater fee. So chances of coming forward with a new bond, that decision would have to be made a year down the road. But it could. You're right. It could be made. My question to Commissioner Rumke is, what the numbers you just gave us, they're principal and interest, right? The annual debt service? Uh-huh. So if we were to bond, say, a million dollars, we're going to include in FY11 an additional $230,000? No. That wouldn't be the case. Oh, yeah. So I don't want councilmembers. Councilmembers are thinking that right now. So the numbers you gave us aren't really... So let me go into a little bit more detail. You asked me what annual debt service was, and I appreciate... I think we should be clear, because we have other bonds that people want to do, and these aren't the real numbers we need to find in the budget. And so here's what we'll be looking at with respect to debt service. And I apologize, you don't have the handouts that we worked from last fall in front of you. But if you think about that layering effect, the way our debt service would work is, and again, timing. Whenever we would go to market to take this bond issue, we would pay interest only the first year. And if we went, let's say, if we went in July, we would be paying debt service of interest only in January or February. And that would be an interest only payment. And again, as Councilmember Stennett pointed out, this would be... The numbers I gave you are the fully loaded debt service. So you would not see this impact till FY12. Okay? And so it's that layering exercise that we went through. But I think it's important to note that even though you would only be committing in FY11 a potential interest payment, you are committing into the future. And I know several of you have had those questions over the years. So important to note that during this stringent year that we're facing in FY11, we would have just minimal interest payment, but we would have that additional debt service in the future years. Well, again, I want to make everyone understand, because we all got an email this week about a bond that we're all talking about that said there's no impact to FY11, your first payment won't be due to FY12. That is not true on any of these things. We all have to find the interest money. If we want to add anything to what the mayor's proposed for this budget, we have to find that interest money. Unless it's bonded at the very end of the fiscal year. Unless we wait till next June to do it. Right. We will have interest payment. So we will have to add money or take money away from the budget somewhere else to find it. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. We bonded a lot of projects this year, and there are many others that won't be funded. And by doing so, we've made a determination about what projects we think are important and what projects we think that need to wait for later. And within the last several weeks, many of us received lists of roads in our districts that are rated below 65, that are deemed substandard based on the road rating system that our city puts out. Last week I took a ride around with the head of our streets and roads to look at each and every one of the roads in my district that were rated below 65. And we looked at the amount of money that was available and it didn't come even close to paving the number of streets that have fallen below 65. And I brought this up in meetings past. In years past, the council, I think wisely, has allocated bond funds to try to catch our roads up. Because as we allow more and more roads to fall below the 65 rating, we are essentially kicking the can down the road. And one day we are going to have to catch up. We can't continually allow our roads to deteriorate without someday having to pay the piper as we are paying right now in both the storm and sanitary sewers and some other things as well. So, I believe and I realize this is a difficult budget year, to say the least. But I think we need to continue putting in the $3 million that has been done in years past for road repaving. The money just ran out really fast. I only covered a fraction of the streets on my list. And I think that this is basic government services that we owe our citizens to keep up. They expect their roads to be taken care of and that they are maintained in a way that we believe is acceptable and that our rating system believes is acceptable. So, I guess I would make a motion that we bond $3 million this year and issue that bond in 2010. So moved. I guess I would be adding it to the docket. Probably would need some guidance from the legal department about whether that is something that needs to be done at this time or at a later time in conjunction with the approval of the budget. So, if you will hang on for just a second, let me get a little guidance. This is for this fiscal year, not for next year. I misunderstood. I apologize. Okay. So, the motion is for the current fiscal year to modify our CIP so as to issue $3 million in bonds for road projects. It repaving. Okay. Do I hear a second? I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'll look at Commissioner Rumpke and ask you the question. So, we've just finished cutting $12 million approximately from our current budget. So, is there a place where, I mean, I understand this motion has to do with our current budget, that we might look to find, I guess the debt service wouldn't come out of this year. So, when would it? It would be enough, if we, conceptually, it would probably take us until the end of June to be able to go to market again, but assuming that was the case, we would have debt service be June, or sorry, it would be December. So, you would have an interest only payment in December, which would be in the FY11 budget. And that would be, I know you can't say exactly how much, but give us kind of a ballpark. So, on a million. On $3 million. Pardon me? Well, that's an annual payment, so it would be probably half of that. Well, we would have the interest payment in December and an interest and principal payment in June. In June. So, you'd have two payments. Two payments in this next fiscal year. And again, depending on the timing of that, sometimes you can push it to January, but that would probably be this far out that we could push it. So, if Council wanted to do this, then we'd need to cut that much out of our proposed budget. Correct. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I do appreciate Council Member Martin's motion. I, however, cannot support it. There are several projects that we have delayed bonding for and not that we have, you know, through the discussion that Commissioner Rumpke was speaking of, that we've prioritized. And some of those projects haven't received any money at all, where we have had a little bit of money to put towards some repaving within our districts. I don't believe that we can repave every single street in our districts necessarily. I think there is a rating schedule and that if done over a period of time, we can address those streets and get on some type of repaving schedule. That's what we've been able to do in the First District Council Office is we've looked at and prioritized based on the ratings and try to take care of those as necessary. And as long as that's done over an extended period of time, you'll be able to be on some type of repetitive schedule. But there are things like infill and redevelopment, which have been proposed to be done, bonded for like three years or so. We've received no money for that at all. So I won't be able to support the motion. However, I do appreciate the sentiment, but I won't be able to support that right now. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member McCord. Thank you. I want to say how much I appreciate Council Member Martin, your diligence about this. And I want to give you some historical perspective because I've heard you say often that this is how I believe and this is what I've heard and so forth. Let me tell you how we got here. Five years ago, five and a half years ago, when when Council Member Lane, Myers, and myself came on, we saw there was a 30 million dollar repaving problem. We asked our streets and roads to evaluate how many roads, if today we paved them, what it would cost the city. It was 30 million dollars at that point in time. Up until that time, we were relying on nothing but the monies that comes through the feds to us, which equaled about slightly under $200,000 per council district. And as you are now becoming very familiar, $200,000 does not get you a lot of road repaving. And so we were very stunned and we felt like the citizens would be very stunned when they realized no local tax money had been going to paving roads. And so we put together a plan to bond three million a year for 10 years. So to try and get at that problem. And it was a motion brought forward by Council Member Stinnett and myself. And we've been fortunate for the last four years we've been able to do that. So for the last four years, we've put 12 million into roads that up until that time, previous administration and previous councils have not had the opportunity to do or the foresight to do. And we all know how we are getting by. It's called crack seal. It's all that lovely stuff that you put on your roads to hold them together. That is like a washboard when you put it down in the when it's cold. And it's like hot glue when it's when it gets hot. And nobody likes it. But it's how we have to hold our roads together when you don't have a lot of money. When the Fletcher administration came in, they bonded a tremendous amount of money to do repaving across the state. And through a lot of hard work of folks sitting on this council, we brought in somewhere shy of 100 million dollars for paving from interstate paving to paving in neighborhoods and and other roads that that Frankfurt administration put more money into our road system literally overnight than had been done in decades. So in the last five years, we've seen tens and hundreds of millions of dollars of local money and state and federal money going into this. But we're at a place where, frankly, we just we can't afford it, even though I wanted as bad as anybody and it fought as hard for roads as anybody up here. We are at a place where we just don't have the money to pay that. And I think to give some perspective, Linda, I'm going to ask you a question that I don't know the answer to. And I don't think that you probably will either. But if we bonded the entire list of fifty four million dollars, what would be our interest payment in June? And I mean, January, excuse me. Oh, in January. I mean, no. That. Twenty. Let's see. So. So. So you come back with two and two and a half million dollars. You know, and the reason I'd say that just as a sense of perspective is, is that we have fifty four million dollars of projects we've said we need to do that are approved. We just aren't don't have them funded. And we don't have the resources to do what we need to do at the moment. And we have to recognize that every single one of these, as council member Senate said, has a carrying cost that we have to figure out how we're going to pay for that, you know, come come January. So as we go down this list, we I would just encourage us to recognize that while we feel very strongly about certain ones for different reasons, we have to find that money somewhere. And we're in a position where we're we're somewhat stuck. But I want citizens to know from this conversation that for the last four to five years, this council, this administration, Frankfurt, both administrations have put a tremendous amount of money into road infrastructure and road improvement and road repaving into here. So it isn't as if we haven't done anything. And while I really, really would like to vote for this to see payment go down, I can't do that because of the situation we find ourselves in. But I want to give a sense of perspective from from watching this over the last five years. Two point seven point two point seven million worth of interest due in January for fifty four million dollar list of approved projects, not wish list projects that have been voted on and approved. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Next on the list is Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I actually agree with Councilmember Martin. I wish that we had had the resurfacing project list before us in January when we voted on the bonding projects and how they were prioritized. It would have been very interesting to had this in the mix. He and I both probably are just seeing this resurfacing process work for the first time because those lists had already been created, I believe, when we came on council for last summer. So this is the first opportunity I've gotten to see a real good list of the projects in my district. That need to be resurfaced. And I'm just very concerned that we aren't even we're not even touching the surface. I mean, it's just there's a there's just a huge need in our communities. I have streets in my in my district, which is one of the older districts that have never been resurfaced since they were originally built. And people tell me that all the time. And I hear from people in my district, we need more resurfacing dollars. And so I wish that we had had this list in front of us in January when we voted on the bonding projects. But we didn't. And I and I really think that's a process that needs to be changed. So I have to concur with Councilmember Martin. I think we need to prioritize this. And I give due credit to all the council members in the past that have voted on resurfacing dollars. And obviously it was it was a worse situation then than it is today. But that doesn't mean that we're in good in a good place today. So I think I would agree with Councilmember Martin that we need to prioritize this. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. We have, though, and I appreciate the work that's been done in the past, because I think it would be far, far worse had the council not bonded these these amounts in the years past. But even this year, we have bonded things. And by doing so, we've made a determination that these things are more important than repaving our roads. We bonded the legacy trail, the Lyric Theater. We bonded two million dollars for PDR, which I'm going to have a hard time explaining to my constituents why we are putting easements on vacant land rather than but we can't pave our roads. Now, I think PDR is a very valuable program, but I don't think it's more important than paving our roads. We spent a million dollars. We bonded a million dollars to plan a building that we don't have the money to build. As far as a new government center, we're doing street streetscapes and we're doing a distillery district. I think that the average citizen out there, if you ask them what would their priority be, they would respond with that I want my street paved and I want that big pothole out in the front, or I want the divot or the buckling or the alligators or all the different things that happen to paving to be taken care of. So I guess I would urge the council to consider this and to think about what their constituents might want in this. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I agree that I'm not sure that we're prioritizing things correctly. And I have there's several streets in the 11th district that are very, very bad shape. We had a bad winter, which makes them even worse than they probably would have been. And I think as we look at the bonding for all these projects, we really, really need to look at if they're necessary, because we're, I guess, in a financial crisis and with anything, we just need to look at what we can do. Look at those items and, you know, determine what can we live without and what can we not live, you know, what what's necessary. So and I would think our infrastructure, along with police and fire, public safety should be very important to our community. So just some thoughts as we go forward. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Just for further delving into this situation, Commissioner Webb had developed a new formula for the allocation to the various districts. My district got $85,000 and I was able to pave four segments out of God knows how many, 10 pages worth of them at least. And we can't run fast enough to catch up. We have a hiatus in here of, you know, not the $3 million is even going to do it. But we really have to keep our foot on the pedal and get something done on this. Or it's going to come back and bite us big time later down the road. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I have a question here because it's my understanding this was supposed to be a presentation inside a work session, which is 15 minutes. It seems like what we've done is morphed this into a committee of the whole. So help me out. My understanding was that prior to our rescheduling the work session on Tuesday afternoon, there was a committee of the whole meeting scheduled for this afternoon to address these particular issues. In light of that, I kind of have tried to utilize this as something of a version of a committee of the whole meeting so that you all can get to know each other better. And I'm wondering if you can help gain access to the information you need in much the same fashion you would had the meeting gone on as scheduled. So that's sort of the philosophy I've brought to the table. But if something else is appropriate, I'm fine with it. Then I would think that the appropriate thing to do would be to move on and finish the work session and then adjourn and do a committee of the whole and have the Vice Mayor chair that meeting and take up this topic. I'm not sure you can have a committee of the whole meeting now since one hasn't been properly noticed. But I think the notion of the agenda as it got circulated by Ms. Langston earlier in the week was that those issues would be addressed in the context of the work session today. So I guess if we're doing it the other way, then that means that this would be a 15-minute presentation and the time is expired on the presentation. I think the presentation ran four or five minutes and then it's been questions from the council ever since then. I understand I don't especially care one way or the other here. And the circumstances are a little abnormal as far as I'm concerned. But I think it's a consequence of scheduling the work session on Tuesday. If I may intervene just for a minute to agree with the Mayor, under the circumstances this was presented to me and in the interest of efficiency, I felt like as well that we could continue with it today. Thank you, Mayor. Well, if all the questions are done, I guess it's almost a mute point anyway. But if we're going to continue questions, then I would make the motion that we would end this discussion and take it up at the next scheduled CAL meeting and this continue on the work session. So the budget presentation would go back to the committee of the whole for budget. There's a motion on the floor. So for the moment, further discussion on the motion, which is to create a authorization to bonds for $3 million for paving projects during the current budget year. So discussion on that would be in order at this time. Then I would call the question. Yes. I heard a second, I think, from Council Member Ellinger. That motion requires a two-thirds vote of the Council, which I think with a couple of folks absent, my math is correct, would require nine. Is that correct? Whatever two-thirds of 13 is. All right. Those in favor of approving the motion for the previous question, which would terminate debate on the pending motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. The motion fails by a vote of seven in favor, six against. Not having achieved the two-thirds majority of the floor, it is still open for debate on the motion that's on the floor. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just briefly, I think, Council Member Martin, if you would consider, I think what you're getting a sense of is that everybody is supportive of this, but the bottom line is the bottom line. Where is $600,000 to cut out of the budget to make it happen? And I would have to vote no in the current form, but what I would suggest is maybe looking at what you see as a potential are the cuts that would get us there and bring that back so that we could vote on that so that we could actually get to where we need to go. But in the current form, because we don't have the money to do it, I have to vote no. But if you have suggestions or motions that we can vote on to get us there, I would gladly entertain those. Any, Council Member Martin. I've sort of been raising this ever since we had our bond meeting in the past. I voted no on that bond issue, and I voted no on the subsequent bond issues, because I could see this was coming. I mean, we were not going to have enough money if we're doing all these other projects to do the road refund. And I think that that's where the Council has made mistakes in the past, is they have allocated money to special projects rather than allocating money to the brass tacks, to the mundane but necessary projects. And I think that's where we're going to have some of the secondary maintenance issues that keep us going, such as road repaving. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. There's no further discussion on the motion. The motion is to authorize the issuance of $3 million in bonds for purposes of repaving roads and that those bonds be issued during the current fiscal year. That's an accurate statement of motion. Those in favor, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. And more specifically, it would be to put that motion on the docket for a Council meeting. Motion fails by a vote of 4 to 9. Any further questions for Commissioner Rumpke or others? Council Member Stennett. I just have a housekeeping question. Our next COW is not until May 20th, because the next two weeks we won't be around. And we still have revenue projections to go through, as well as finish this bonding discussion at some point. So are we going to wait until the 20th at 5 p.m. to take up? And that'll be a lot of work for this Council going forward. We'll have to extend our meetings either prior to 5 p.m. or add other days to our schedule. So I don't know if everyone's looking ahead. If we discontinue our discussion today, we have a lot of meetings ahead of us, a long meeting. We'll make sure everyone's aware of that. We may have to move the 20th meeting from 5 p.m. on up to 3 p.m. Because the revenue projection is a very important discussion. And if we're not going to have it today, we need to have it soon instead of waiting until the end of the budget. Excuse me, Mayor. May 20th is our next scheduled COW meeting at 5 p.m. on Thursday night. What if we moved it up that day? Well, the next two weeks, people are traveling in the election week. But to maybe 3 o'clock is what Councilmember Ellinger suggested. Move it up that day to 3 o'clock on the 20th? What's wrong with having one on the 11th? Commissioner Romkey, I think, has a germane piece of information. Just a little piece of information. Commissioner Romero, we planned his personal vacation around it being today. So if we do move it next week, he won't be available. We have, obviously, the presentation here, and we're happy to make that presentation. But I know a lot of the historical data from revenue has been coming from Bill. So I just wanted you to have that as you consider what dates you decide to discuss this. How many in favor of staying with it today? How many in favor of convening at 3 o'clock on the 20th? Okay. Councilmember Crosby. On May 20th, according to the schedule, I have found that we have report outs. Are we doing that as well? I just want to clarify. Well, again, it depends on how long the revenue discussion takes. If it's first, then we may not have report outs. I would prefer that we try to knock out. I mean, we have two hours and we're talking about, we're going to argue 30 minutes out of our two hours over what we're going to discuss. Let's just move on. But I will say it was rather confusing today as to what the meeting actually was for those of us who are getting information because some thought it was strictly a budget meeting and then others thought it was a work session. So it was just a little confusing. But I say we push forward. Thank you. It didn't appear to be a majority of people wanting to continue today. And I guess the next question is, do you want to convene at 3 p.m. in the Committee of the Whole on the 20th? Does anybody have it? Councilmember Ellinger. May I make a motion that we have a Council of the Whole meeting that starts at 3 o'clock on the 20th? I have a motion by Councilmember Ellinger and a second by Councilmember McCord to convene the Committee of the Whole at 3 p.m. on May 20th for purposes of hearing revenue projections and other matters. Any discussion? Councilmember Crosby. Would it maybe be appropriate if we wait to make this motion to see what we get through today and then adjust our schedule accordingly rather than voting up front we're going to meet at 3 when we don't even know how far we're going to get today? Just a suggestion. Thank you. My sense of it was most folks were not interested in getting into the revenue projections this afternoon. That's a misunderstanding. How many people want to proceed with the revenue projections this afternoon? Okay. Well, in that case, we'll proceed. And Councilmember Ellinger has withdrawn his motion. So, Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. I support having the conversation today as long as we have time. That's fine. I just would rather us complete our work session and then adjourn that and then go into a poll meeting or whatever it's going to be called today and have the appropriate chair at the meeting. That would be helpful. Whatever the pleasure of the Council is about that. Councilmember Martin. The notice that came out from the Council office was that there was a special called meeting of the Council in work session at 4 o'clock today and the committee of the whole meeting was canceled. So that was the notice that went out. So you can't just schedule a meeting now and call it for a couple hours from now. Well, that was the intent. My question then is we are doing committee of the whole work. So in response to Councilmember James, can we take a recess at the end of work session and then come back and the council do its committee of the whole. The committee of the whole meeting was canceled or Councilmember Gordon. Well, and and that was the notice that was given to the public. Let me ask my question one more time. Can we do the work session work except for what's advertised in here, which is committee of the whole work. Take a recess at the end of committee of the whole of the council work session work and come back after the recess. Same meeting and do what's on the agenda. And if it will make everybody happy, I'll go do other things while you all do the budget. I will volunteer to do that. So if it's the same meeting, you're fine. But if you adjourn a meeting, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. But if you would adjourn a meeting, as Councilmember James was describing and then try to call another meeting, we run into some notice problems. Beginning to feel some some sense of notion that we ought to just put the revenue projection discussion at the end of the agenda and reconvene there. Well, if there's no objection, we'll do it in that fashion. And I'll get the videotape later for my viewing pleasure. All right. That takes us down to council reports. Now, then, Councilmember Gordon. Yes, I have one item. Council members, you will remember at our last work session, which must have been now ten days ago, about we heard a presentation on the LexTran budget. And normally the process is that we hear the presentation, ask questions, and then there should have been a motion to put the LexTran budget on our docket. And we did not have that. So with that, I move to place onto the docket the LexTran budget. And if we can't walk it on to tonight's, then it will need to go on the next meeting. And are you proposing a resolution to approve the LexTran? Yes. The motion is to add a resolution to the docket to approve the LexTran budget. I hear a second from Councilmember Ellinger, I think. Councilmember Stennett. Because this was a special called work session, I thought we weren't allowed to do walk-ons at any special called meeting of the council. But I think we had discussion that work session may be treated differently. So I think Logan needs to clarify that. Because normally during a special meeting, we have no walk-ons. This isn't really a walk-on. It's a motion to put on the docket, which could be the next docket. Right? Is that correct? On a future docket? I just don't want to mess it up. Because we can always do it at 7. It's not a big deal. We can do it in two hours. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. Because there were some other items that people wanted to put on the docket that were told they couldn't because we can't walk on at a special meeting. I just want to make sure. That point is well taken and I'm advised. point is well taken and I'm advised by the law department we can do that at seven so we'll come in the dock according then all right anything further councilmember Gorton councilmember Stennett Thank You mayor as we all know over the weekend we had a tremendous rainstorm here in the city it seems like you know when I got elected to council we said we don't have those but once every ten years we've had three in the last five oh six oh eight now the storm of OTN and it seems like we're just not getting any cooperation from Mother Nature and one big area in our city that was actually closed for a couple days is North Broadway and the railroad bridge and that affects my district it's actually a councilmember James district as well as councilmember Blues's area and we've had a lot of public questions being asked as to what we're doing to fix that once and for all I know there's three issues that we need to address the first and foremost mayor I like your help with and whatever we need to send to the railroad company but get it painted before the World Equestrian Games because the way it looks is just something we don't want our visitors looking at or seeing so I think those discussions need to happen as soon as we can set up a meeting the second issue and working with the state yesterday figuring out a way to make drainage in that area work a little bit better and design a drainage system that actually gets water away from that area once and for all and the third is the pedestrian issue and reconstituting a bridge I know that's a major million dollar undertaking but we need to start that plan sometime I know councilman James has had frustrations too with it and we're constituents and we just need an update the public as to what our process is going to be again getting it painted first and foremost before the World Games hopefully if we can and working our way down so if we can do that at some point. I believe that's the RJ Corman railroad that owns that bridge Commissioner Webb if you could follow up with the folks at Corman railroad just to see if they might be receptive to putting a fresh coat of paint. Well with 18 million dollars in stimulus money they received this year I think good point you know a fresh coat of paint may not be too big of an ask out of that about that money. All right. Thank you mayor. Councilmember McCord. Thank you mayor a couple of things one is over the weekend we also had lost officer Brian Derman and in a very tragic line-of-duty accident and on Tuesday and Monday and Tuesday with visitation and the funeral I can honestly say I've probably never been more proud of our community as the way that that we honored him and honored honored all of our public safety folks and my appreciation to everyone that that serves us in that capacity and certainly my thoughts and prayers go out to the Derman family but it was an amazing sight to see you know 20-some miles of people lined up with their hands over their hearts paying respects and seeing police officers from all over the country all around the area and other states come in to honor him and so it was just a really proud moment for our community. A couple of quick announcements one is tomorrow at 10 o'clock there is the groundbreaking for the new Keith Shire School on Keith Shire also at 5 o'clock tomorrow is the opening of the Wellington Gardens inside Wellington Park and certainly invite all out for that. With the remainder of my time I think this is something that we need to probably take up because it has to do with the budget in our next after the recess but I want to pass around to you a couple of things here real quick in the in the general services link which we're going to report out fully at the end of this month we as a council have to make some decisions before we actually get to report out. Two of those decisions have to do with with the golf and the pools issue and basically we have the issue of the fee increases that were proposed and the revenue generated from that and we as a council and need to get some clarification on that but what I'm passing around to you and I'm going to ask Logan if you don't mind to come to the mic while I'm doing this other part but what's coming around to you are our four options that we found with regard to pools. The reason I'm passing this out to you now and would like to maybe get a sense of where the council wants to go even if it's in our next meeting is that if we there there are four options that kind of get us to where we need to go. The first is the mayor's recommendation of closing Constitution and Berry Hill and we know that as it's reported out that's a net savings of about $42,000 but as the links did its work we found that there's actually two other pools that fall into that same category and the criteria that we looked at at Constitution and Berry Hill which is Douglas Park and Picodone pools as well and so as we looked at this and we said okay well what let's let's give the the council a some options what you have before you are four options that I would like to see us make a decision on and point the administration in in a parks department going forward because there's no sense in opening pools one month and then turning around and closing them a month later we that sends the wrong message so what you have in front of you is the closure of Berry Hill and Constitution saves $42,000. The second is is identified those four other those four pools that if we closed all of them for the season it would save $102,000 and let me just say recognizing that the numbers are one side of it and then there's the service and who gets left behind and in areas that need certain things that we're all very sensitive to but but I think it's important to look at the options. The third option is we open all pools Constitution, Berry Hill, every one of them and we close every pool on August 1st and we basically save ourselves a month it'd be two weeks before kids go back to school that savings is $135,000 and fourth maybe the more attractive option of all four of them is to open all our pools including Constitution, Berry Hill, closing all pools on August 1st except for the family aquatic centers those main those main ones at the end of the day that saves us about $47,000 so what I want to do is put this before you as a council we can take this discussion up and maybe vote following council reports but I think it's important for you to look at this and whatever questions you've got Jerry's in the room and and cameras in the room last question Logan really quickly to you as it relates to fees and the increase of fees you know is it of the opinion of law that the administration can do that regardless of what the council does how has it been in the past and what would you guide us to do in that discussion because we need to do that at the beginning of the season we don't want a child showing up to a pool with $3 in his hand and it being at $4 and running in that situation. Well the law department looked at this back in 2007 and concluded that they couldn't find anything in the chart of the statute of ordinances that required that council approve however historically the council has approved and we advised parks back then that all of the fee increases at golf golf fees and park fees had always been a part of some resolution which had been adopted by the council to approve those and since that time there have been a couple of fee increases I'm told by Jerry Hancock and that both of those fee increases were approved by the council in FY 8 FY 10 last in 10 there was a golfing increase of $1 per round I believe the proposed fee increases as I understand for FY 11 are included as a part of the budget again which the council would be voting on. And the reason why council members that this we don't have to vote we don't have to discuss right now but but it is something that we need to to take up immediately because pools open Memorial Day weekend again if we're going to close certain pools or not they need some direction as far as lifeguard training and and getting pools up to standards to open up and then from the fee standpoint you know we needed to be very consistent and start at the beginning of the season so with that mayor I'm done with my report but I want to I will be bringing that back forward for motions for some some guidance from council. Thanks council member Martin. Thank you mayor on Derby Eve the Pasadena Neighborhood Association had their annual summer meeting and there's a lot of folks there Mayor Newberry was there council member Gorton was there council member Ellinger's mother was there and I enjoy chatting with her a little bit and Sheriff Witt was there PVA David O'Neill was there it was a veritable fancy farm and the the discussion that evening was was very lively to say the least and Steve Nelson who's the president of the Pasadena Neighborhood Association does just a great job there's a lot of food there my family was there to say hi and just had a wonderful time with the folks there on a note about PVA David O'Neill there is a deadline coming up for for appealing your PVA assessment on your home so if you have if you believe that your your home has been overvalued if you think the PVA assessment is incorrect you have I believe until Monday May 17th to file your papers with the PVA's office to challenge that PVA assessment so if you think that you they've they've valued your your home too much now is the time to speak up so that's what I had with that mayor thank you much thanks councilmember Myers Thank You mayor I was trying to decide whether I was gonna bring this up or not but since councilmember McCord thank you brought this up and it's it's the tragedy that happened and officer Durham and I guess what I want to say to the public is and I just ran this past a couple people and they gave me an option to kind of put a twist to this but when you go out to a restaurant and you see an officer in uniform in the restaurant wouldn't it be nice if one of the ways that we showed our appreciation of them and their family and and the risk that they put themselves in and as I watched the procession go by it was just I don't know what words to use but to watch the spouses and the sides of those cars and those cruisers and they were going by and the looks on their faces and I know they're all thinking this could be me and so when you're out in a restaurant and you see a uniformed officer not only go up and show your appreciation for the service they provide our community but wouldn't it be special if anonymously we just picked up their tab and and just all over the community for the next three months every time an officer went into a restaurant to sit down and eat even if he's with or she's with their entire family if we just picked up the I just think it's a very small way to show our appreciation but I just urge everybody to consider doing that. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember James. Thanks, Mayor. I don't have a report but I want to ask Councilmember McCord. Thanks for giving council members the opportunity to give input about that. Usually our budget link process is very confined to those three but I do appreciate the opportunity but a couple of questions. What is the what's the opening date for all the pools and what are what are considered the family aquatic centers? Jerry, if you want to come to the mic and address that I think it would be appropriate. Thank you. The family aquatic centers are at Woodland, Southland, Tate's Creek, Castlewood. We're going to open the four aquatic centers on Memorial Day weekend that's Saturday and we will open the remaining pools on June the 7th. I believe that the current last day of school is the third so no we would be opening them on Saturday. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Councilmember McCord, was there also an idea I guess if you close all pools August 1, that's a month early, was there any idea is it was there a contemplation of cutting back days during the week for each one of those pools to give you kind of the compilation of the 30 days? No, that didn't come up necessarily. What we found, Councilmember James, was obviously having those two pools close, you know, causes those council members and the people who live around there to say gosh why us and and so forth and we started looking at is there a way that maybe we can offer a more attractive option and not cut services and so forth and there's a there's probably a million ways to skin that cat. I think that that what we try to do is find ways that council members could look at this and say is there something here that gets us to the to the savings in a simplified way that isn't confusing for the public and I think that's the other thing I'd say and I'm so glad you brought this up is why we're kind of doing this out of sequence of the council link is we've got this this date that comes up before our budget gets approved and so forth and it's it's kind of thrown us for a loop and they just need direction as to whatever we want to do but we wanted to try and find something that was equal savings to the first option that may give us and constituents a little bit more of a win but I know there's another five ten hundred ways we could look at that but this was the way that we felt like we could report out. Okay and is there a is there a daily amount if we wanted to maneuver this is there a daily amount that we say if a pools close for one day it costs this much? Jerry? I mean it saves us this much. Yeah I think that there's a lot of cost of filling the pool and getting it up speed and this that and the other and I don't know if we can break it down to a daily rate or not Jerry? My primary problem is I have to hire people. I have to tell them where they're going to work and it takes two weeks to get people on payroll and I've got Red Cross training on the 23rd of May and I need to have people on the payroll getting paid and they need to know where they're going to work. We can provide you with daily information but it varies all over the map. It's it's purely weather dependent. Our success is purely related to number of days over 90 days. So in June if we have good hot weather we'll have a lot of people. People will come on Monday if it's raining but or they won't come if it's raining but they'll come on Tuesday if it's hot and dry. So I can't tell you that we can save money on Mondays by closing as opposed to purely weather. Weather is sort of four or five day cycles. Okay. Are these part-timers that are working? Yeah these are seasonal people primarily college and high school students. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Council Member Crosby. Sorry I have to write it down. I forget my questions when they come up. First I know many people up here have expressed their gratitude to the community and also to our Public Safety Division and many divisions within LFPCG for the celebration of Officer Brian Derman's life on Tuesday. It was a wonderful honoring of him and his service. I think that many of us up here who attended probably cannot even put into words what we experienced and I I know it's something that many of us hope to never have to experience again in our community but I also want to just extend our thanks. We had many different visitors in town who were from various Public Safety Divisions in other communities. Council Member Gordon and I were in the car together and Vice Mayor Gray and we would go by an intersection and we were just simply amazed where people had come from to help our community out during this time. So I think we also probably need to extend some thanks to some the entire state really and I heard that there were officers here from possibly North Carolina, South Carolina and a lot of different other states across the country. So thank you all for helping us out during our time of need and grief. Also I wanted to announce the the Andover Hills Neighborhood Association is having a meeting tonight at 7 p.m. at Crossroads Christian Church. So go to that if you can. And I was wondering if we could post a picture. On Wednesday I had the opportunity to have third graders from Lexington Universal Academy in and we learned quite a bit about what we do up here. In fact they all sat in your seats and they fought over the mayor and the vice mayor seats on who was gonna get to be who. But they were a very polite group of third graders and asked some wonderful questions I must say. But the biggest thing they wanted to know is if they were gonna get to be on TV that day. So I promised them I would flash them on TV. So this is to you all who came out and visited with us on Wednesday. Thank you for putting that up. The last thing I just wanted to ask, I was writing it down as we were going and I see that Councilmember McCord has left the room but maybe Jerry might be able to answer this or someone. Oh I'm sorry you're in the room not in your seat. Do you know during your, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. I just didn't see you. How's that? Stay in your seat. Was this budget recommendation that you're making or that or that was made regarding the pools, was that made with the fee increase already built in do you know or? Yeah that the basically what we try to do we were trying to we're separating out because there's a number of things that are cart and horse. Councilmember Crosby you know we have golf and Avon that that recommendation and so forth which is something we don't necessarily have to do immediately but the golf fee if we're going to approve that then we we do have to figure out that before before we open up all the golf courses and or we we get into the season or there's a start date. The pool thing is is definitely a hard start date and as Jerry said I've got I got to hire people equivalent to this that and the other. So yeah that was that was how we had to try and try and look at this. So their budget and their and then these reductions were built in already given with the fee increase built in. Okay that's thank you. Sorry. No that's okay. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you Mayor. I wanted to ask a question of Jerry Hancock since Councilmember McCord brought this forward just to be sure I don't know what your drop-dead date is. General Services was due to report out on the 20th and I'm resuming from what you said that's too late. It's too late for us to legally hire people get them in place and make them come to training on the 23rd to verify their physical swimming CPR skills. Unfortunately we've not been through this as a city closing pools and laying people off. So it begs questions we haven't had to answer before. Schools need to open as soon as schools out as we can and we can't well wait until the council approves the budget in June in order to make certain decisions. Okay. I would not want to change prices on our citizens midstream. If we're going to charge something let's charge it for the entire summer. It's too hard for little kids to show up and understand that yesterday it was three dollars and today it's four. So unfortunately I'm asking you if you can to consider the pricing and the pool closing issue separate from the entire budget. Now I would presume we would need some sort of information specifically about the fees that we could look at before we vote on it. Yes and I have provided that to Councilman McCord. I have it here in not very pretty form but I could certainly make that available to you. But that wouldn't have to be done today that could be done or I guess my question for legal was we have a Logan we have a mayor's budget public hearing on the mayor's budget normally if the council is proposing a raise in any fee or tax we have a public hearing on that so we can hear from the public. So had you thought about when that public hearing might be or maybe the council doesn't want to have a public hearing I think personally think it would be appropriate. Could we have a public hearing could combined on the 20th with the hearing on the mayor's proposed budget and is that too late? Jeanette informs me that there already is a public hearing scheduled on the 20th for the mayor's proposed budget. Yes and so would we combine that with a public hearing on the fee increase? I know it's built into the mayor's budget but I think it needs to be highlighted separately. I'm not sure Councilmember Gordon let me check on that get back with you before you adjourn this meeting. And when would we need to do that in order to have a motion to put something on the docket to comply with what Mr. Hancock wants which is to have the fees in place the first day. Let me chat with Mr. Hancock and Councilmember McCord and Commissioner Cole and get back with you. Okay all right thank you very much. Councilmember Meyers. Thank you mayor. First I want to say I want to thank Councilmember McCord for at least bringing these four options before us because originally the first option and only option was to close two pools and one was in my district and that was Barry Hill pool. So now we've got some other things. Councilmembers I hate to be the one but are we still in council report mayor? I mean but we're not discussing this we're discussing this in Cal meeting right? I think he brought it up. He said no discussion during his comments. He ended his council report. I'm just trying to keep us by the agenda. I'm not trying to cut you off Councilmember. If we need to finish council report then go into the Cal when we get there then to have full debate on this. Okay I just had a question though because I thought he said that usually we don't have a vote on this. That's the only reason I asked that. Okay but I thought he said that we were gonna have a vote. He's hoping to have a vote on this in the Cal meeting. Cool thank you. Thank you mayor. All right Councilmember Feigl. Thank You mayor. I too would like to comment on how impressed I was with our community with Officer Durman's celebration and as I rode through the procession I found it very very touching that everybody was so quiet and reverent and at one point I even saw a lady reach over because her dog had started to bark and and she reached over to close his mouth so that he wouldn't bark so I thought that was really touching that everybody was so reverent during as they were watching the procession go by and this was particularly touching to me. My son is also a police officer and so I can certainly relate to all those families that were involved in that. Secondly I wanted to say that over the weekend we did have tremendous flooding in the Fifth District and not only did we have water in basements but we had sewage in basements as well and so I just wanted to say to everybody that first you need to call 3-1-1 so that they can put that information in their tracking system and they're trying to address the most critical situations first but if you did call 3-1-1 and you have not gotten response then please feel free to call my office number it's 258-3213. Thank you mayor. Thank you. Does any other council member wish to submit a report? All right moving on down to the mayor's report there were some recommendations for appointments to boards and commissions for your consideration a motion to approve those. I have a motion that Council Member Crosby and a second by Council Member McCord to approve those recommendations. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. That takes us down to the last item on the agenda public comment on any issues not on today's agenda. I think Mr. O'Neill was here earlier but I believe he left. He's going to come back for the council meeting tonight and speak at public comments. All right thank you very much. Anyone else? All right then we'll stand in recess and five minutes. I'll try to reconvene at 530 and Mr. O'Mara Phil will give us a item number two and we can item number two on our agenda is the discussion of revenue projections for fiscal year 2011. Any new news I guess Phil? Well this is a presentation to explain the mayor's 2011 proposed budget the revenue side of it and so I started with revenue highlights. The total general fund revenue is 269.5 million versus the 2010 projected revenue that we are looking at 267.7 million. So if you compare the FY 11 proposed budget for general fund compared to where we're projecting FY 10 to come that would be a 0.7 percent increase and some of the highlights of what that revenue assumptions are is the property tax revenue is assumed to be flat. Excuse me and that's basically after talking to PVA administrator David O'Neill and we'll talk a little bit about some of those assumptions. It includes an increase in occupational license fee of aggressive collections for a million dollars. It also which has already been discussed previously today increases in fees in the Division of Parks both in golf and aquatics. There is shown an increase in detention fees in FY 11 585,000. I believe one of the items that may be on the docket tonight is a new contract with the US Marshal's office which increases the payments that we receive for federal inmate and that's part of that increase. EMS fee shows an increase of about 200,000 over 2010 due to collections and there is a line item for sale property of four million. In addition, council had asked for with interest of what fees have adjustments or built-in rate adjustments. EMS fee has a rate adjustment built into its ordinance and it's pegged to the increase in the Medicare reimbursement rate. That rate is unchanged going into 2011 so the actual EMS rate is not increased even though that increases is available. E-911 has an annual increase of four and a half percent per year and that equates to about a hundred thousand dollars in that fund. The sewer user fee has a rate adjustment based on consumer price index and we have that estimated at 2.3 percent. And then to point out one other highlight, the intergovernmental fund has an increase of over 1.1 million and that is from the build America bond rebates which is part of the stimulus package and that we have sold bonds last fall and I believe just this last issue where we have a discounted rate we pay X rate and then 25% I believe is rebated back to us by federal government. We have to put that in as total cost and then the revenue but net rate is is the sum of the two. If you talk about the general fund, this pie chart is not unfamiliar probably to you all. Everything in this in blue is the one category called business or called license and taxes. It is the lion's share of our general fund. We kept the blue theme to show that one category but broke down within that the major category showing that employee holdings is by far your largest source of income the general fund at 54%. That total of all of those is about 81% of total general fund is in that one license and taxes category. So because that is the largest source as those go so go the general fund. These four major sources equal in the mayor's proposed budget a total of just short of 216 million and that is 80% of the total general fund budget is comprised of these four major revenue items. And I've shown you a little bit of a progression. We have FY 2008 results as a benchmark and as well as FY 2009 and then the current projected for FY 10. Then the mayor's proposed budget for 2011 and it shows projected increases in both payroll net profit and that insurance and franchise would be flat in 11 compared to the projected 2010. Because they are the major drivers of the general fund I then have the assumptions that we used to arrive at those projections. So in payroll by the way we talked to as we've alluded to before we talked to Dr. Trotsky and Dr. Hackbart at University Economics Department and reviewed what we were what we were projecting and how they saw Lexington's economy in FY 11. And we're assuming a half a percent increase in payroll plus a half a million of aggressive collection initiatives. That is based on the expectation that hiring will come back slowly. That unemployment will be slightly lower coming up than 2010 but that drop in unemployment or that increase in employment will be gradual. The good news though about payroll is that businesses increased efficiencies by both laying people off but also cutting hours. As business returns they will add more hours to their existing employees and even have them working overtime before they actually go out and hire another person. That increase in payroll expense benefits us because for each additional dollar payroll we receive our payroll tax. It assumes the government sector is under a lot of budget pressure. We have a large government sector footprint in Lexington and we've been very blessed in the past years a very stable employment there. We're looking at the urban county government with zero raise for non-sworn. We have the University of Kentucky that announced the same. We don't know what school board's going to do but we also know that there are rollbacks and and cost-cutting at the state level. So the government sector is under a lot of budget pressure. We foresee manufacturing construction in the service sectors to have very slow growth and our one strong outlook is the health care sector and we're predicting it to to have growth in FY11. For the net profit we're assuming a 2% rebound plus a half million dollars of aggressive collection initiatives. The assumption is businesses profitability will return and that's reflected in the current stock prices that businesses have through efficiencies cut costs where they can in order to become profitable. The U.S. growth is predicted to be two to three percent. Kentucky is predicted to be less than the national average but Lexington is predicted to be greater than the state as large. So we're using a 2% as our assumption there. We also anticipate business refunds to remain high 2011 as compared to 2010. The other two major categories are insurance and franchise fees. We did assume flat revenues in those two categories. The insurance is based on the risk for the state but it's also driven by assessed values. We see very minimal appreciation of home real estate. We see a slower turnover in people buying new cars and there's also a very strong prediction of commercial real estate adjustments in the 2010-2011 time frame. So based on flat assumption of no real big increase in your home values, people not going out and buying as many new cars, that insurance premiums will be flat. We use the same assumption for the franchise fees. We do know that this is based on the utilities. There's usage and rate. There are rate increases proposed for most of the utilities. The percent that's going to be approved is yet unknown. But the real unpredictable factor is the function of weather. And our ability to take in money in that is very much driven by whether we have a very hot summer or a very cold winter. So we use the conservative assumption of flat, same as last year. Some of the other major funds that I thought council would be interested in, the Urban Services Fund has a total revenue budget of $34.5 million. That's based on the assumption of current property tax rates and also includes an increase in the sale of recyclables of about $1.9 million. The sewer user total revenue, we're showing an updated total revenue of $45.8 million. That's $4 million more than what is actually in your budget book. And that's based on a review showing that we built the 2011 based on the 2010 budget, but the 2010 budget that was adopted did not reflect the full impact of the rate increase that was a year ago. We're now predicting that sewer user fees will come in this year at about $44 million. This reflects that 2.3% CPI increase over what we're projecting in 2010. Water quality fee, this is the first year, it'll be the first full year of the water quality fee. And we have total revenue projected at $11.5 million. That's based on the first few months of the actual that's been experienced through the billing through Kentucky American Water. The other one I wanted to draw attention to, which may be of more interest, is the Municipal Aid Program Fund, which also includes road fund dollars. And that actually, it's budgeted at $4.9 million now. I think Councilmember McCord was talking about budgets in the past at $3 million. The FY11 budget is showing $4.9 million, which is a half a million dollars more than last year due to increased governmental, state or federal, state funding. Sorry. The bad news is it's only half a million. The good news is it's in the right direction. So that, in a recap, is a glimpse at the Mayor's proposed budget for the revenues. I can take what questions you feel might be appropriate. If y'all will just sign up on the monitors. Councilmember Gordon has signed in. Councilmember Gordon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have just a couple questions, Bill. At our, back on the page, it's the page, probably the cover and then the second full page with revenue highlights. Starts with increased fees in parks. Okay. Yes, thank you. That last bullet on, at our April 15th CAL, we requested information as to how that number was arrived or projected and a list of properties that were used for that projection and I haven't seen that yet. Is that in the works to give us some idea of how this $4 million was added to the budget? Is that on your to-do list? The $4 million was added to the budget, Councilmember Gordon, based on one particular property that we know has been appraised for in excess of $4.3 million and, to your point, there is a list being compiled and I think it's working its way through legal so that we have a full and complete list for the council to consider but we felt comfortable enough to be able to put the $4 million in the mayor's proposed budget because we knew by appraisal and by interest on one particular property that we had one that was at least worth $4.3 million. So really that's a compilation of whatever the council would decide to bring forth to sell and that's how that number was put together. But as far as the list goes, and I don't know if Commissioner Cole could put any other additional information forth, but I do know that several of the properties are working their way through to look at title issues, those kind of things, so that we can have a comprehensive list. So this is based on one property selling during fiscal year 11. Right. That, the number, but what we were, yes, but bringing forth we felt we could have that amount of money available in the budget, whether it's that property or several others. This was also discussed as part of our, the general services links, and I believe as part of the report out they'll be providing more information, but there are numerous different properties that could achieve that figure or a combination of those properties. Okay, can you, since the whole council asked for this on April 15th, can you provide that before the the list and the information before the link report out so we can start digesting it? It was a request of the committee of the whole. I'm sorry, I thought at that request it was determined that we would work with the budget links and that that would be the avenue that, where that information would be discussed. I'm happy to do whatever, but there isn't a formal list per se. There's a lot of options that could be on a list. Okay, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you said there was a list, so there's not a list. There is, the list that Commissioner Rumke was referring to is a list of surplus properties that we are preparing to bring forward to you. However, that list would not achieve the four million dollar figure. There are other properties that could be considered that would achieve the four million dollar figure. Okay, and they're, given the real estate climate, you're pretty confident that they would sell, something would sell to equal four million? Yes, I do believe that would be the case. Okay, and then, thank you very much. And then, my other question is for you Bill, or maybe Commissioner Rumke. I'm not sure which. On the last page, the urban services fund and the other dedicated funds. Now, these are revenues, so, and these are revenues that are built into the budget. They're the proposed budget. The proposed budget. And so, do these revenues that are built into the proposed budget reflect those monies also that are going into indirect cost to other divisions from these funds? I don't think indirect cost is considered a revenue. No, I know it's not. It's, but, okay, maybe I should try to figure out a different way to say this. In the landfill user fund, you've listed six million five hundred fifty six thousand nine hundred dollars as revenue for the proposed budget. So, now, is that exact same number built into the budget to fund expenses, indirect cost, landfill expenses? I think the answer is yes. This is the total revenue for the fund. Now, the total expenses may be less than, equal to, or more than the budgeted revenue, depending on that fund. And so, that would stay in the fund? I mean, this is the revenue that's coming into that specific? Yes. And so, what you're saying is it may not necessarily all be earmarked for expense. It would depend on the proposed budget of that fund. Yes, but it does include those indirect costs. Not in revenue. That's on the expense side. I understand that, but the indirect costs are, expense-wise, will come out of this six point five five six nine hundred million for landfill. They will come out of the landfill fund. This is the revenue. Okay. I'm just, I hope I'm answering you. You are, you are. And I know we're going to be meeting with Commissioner Rumpke about the dedicated funds and getting some clarity about indirect cost and about the flow of money. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Could the chair ask for clarification without passing the chairman, the chair-ship. So, I understood your question to be, or my interpretation of it would be, are the projected expenses for the year equal to the projected revenues? Is that correct or not? No? Okay. It's indirect. All right. Well, you're going to come back to it. So, I'm curious about the same. I mean, I'm interested in the same questions because when we achieve these surpluses, it's like. And I guess, Vice Mayor, I was addressing only the revenue line. Right. I understand. Not the expense side. Yeah. But I'm accustomed to addressing both at the same time. That way we can make informed decisions. So, if we had an expense projection or cost projection to accompany the projected revenues, it might be helpful. I suspect that's what you're going to be asking in your meetings, right? Okay. Great. Understand, Bill, that's not your zone. So, understand completely. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question about the sale of the property. If Commissioner Cole. Thank you. I was just curious. I know that some time ago, maybe back at the last budget cycle, we were talking about developing an inventory of city-owned properties and, you know, just having an inventory of them. Has that been done? Yes, it has. Okay. And I know that there are a lot of vacant lots throughout the city that we maintain. And I'm not sure that we own those properties, but are there some of those included? Yes, they are. Okay. In the four million dollars that that would be for the sale of a property, but also it would, there would be a cost savings for the amount that we've been spending to maintain those properties. Has that been included anywhere? That, a specific savings for that has not been included. However, depending on which properties we sold, there could be a savings for operating expenses, but there could be an offset if there's any revenue associated with that property as well. That's right. Yeah, the the list that we compiled of things such as vacant lots, it's been, I'm not, I want to try to explain the process that we've gone through, but we worked with each of the divisions of government to determine is there a government purpose for this piece of property. And then we've done title searches and we're preparing those property and we worked with the utilities to find out is there a reason why we need to hold on to this property. And so the the first ones are about to come forward to the council with a recommendation that you declare them surplus and then we will identify and send response, send out notices to the to the adjacent property owners and put those up for sale. Okay, because I was even thinking if the council members, like if I could have a list of the properties located in the 11th district or what, you know, in the case of a vacant lot, it could be that a person living, you know, across the street would want to buy it or whatever, or a neighborhood could buy it and make a small park as long as they agree to maintain it. Right, we're hopeful to bring the first set of those to the council at the next work session and prior to that work session I'll be contacting the council members that have properties on that list. Okay, thank you. I also had one other question about the fees not to, and I'm not sure about the EMS fee. Do you know what currently what the amount for Medicare rate is? No ma'am, it's, no ma'am. Okay, but you could give me that or. Okay. Okay, thank you. You want Medicare not Medicaid, is that correct? Both would be good. They're definitely different, so we'll give you both. Do you think, are the amounts significantly different? Okay, thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yes, this is going back to the property issue. I'd like to know, I'm just curious, who appraised the properties? We have not had appraisals done on many of the properties. The one that appraisal that Commissioner Rumpke referred to, it was done two years ago because at that time in the mayor's proposed budget was the sale of a piece of property and then that did not occur because the the need to sell the property as the year went on. It didn't happen. So we have not had our properties appraised? It would be very costly for us to appraise all of our properties. We have the structures appraised for insurance purposes. So who did that and what kind of appraisals were done? That was a study that was out of the of the law department. My question wasn't what division, my question was who did the appraisals? Was it? I don't know off the top of my head. And were they replaced? I guess you won't know either if they were replacement appraisals or if they were market sale appraisals. Clearly they were not market sale appraisals, they were for insurance so they were replacement appraisals. Yeah, except for the one property that I that we referred to earlier. Okay, I'd like that information. Thank you. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, help me a little bit with the landfill user fee and what those dollars can be used for. At one point we were talking about closing the Haley Pike landfill and that's not happened. But is there not a lot of expense attendant to closing our landfill and then what do we do? Have it trucked somewhere else and pay somebody one and a half times what we're paying ourselves to take that off our hands? Councilmember, that's an operational question I'm going to have to defer to. They're not here now. They were before. So I would I would have to reach out to Environmental Quality to answer that. From a revenue standpoint, we have revenues coming in. Any surplus goes to the closure reserve. We have a sizable amount there and there are benchmarks and things that have to occur before we can close it. But beyond that overview at 30,000 feet, I can't speak any more detail. But through time if we do close that, we're going to be somewhat at the mercy of a third party who I would assume. I would defer to Environmental Quality to answer that problem. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, this is for you so if you don't mind. What is this last fund you talked about? Is it Municipal Aid? It's the title is, excuse me, Municipal Aid and County Road Aid Fund. Excuse me, this is just the Municipal Aid. There's two funds. And where does that money come from? I will defer to... The Municipal Aid Fund is in your big book on page 305 and there's a description. I'll just read briefly from it. It's Fayette County's share of state gasoline tax allocation based on population. It's restricted to supervising, inspecting, building expenses related to construction, reconstruction, maintenance of urban roads and streets. How would you define urban on that? I believe in the statute that allows for this, it's very clearly spelled out. So it's a state definition, I believe. So it would be a state road? Yes. We have to provide our budget program to the state and they they work with us to approve our projects. That all goes out of engineering's budget. All right, thank you. And what page was that? 305. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Any other questions? Mr. O'Mara. I've got a couple of questions. Bill, earlier when Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Hackbart were here, can you take us back through those forward projections? Just give us a reminder of those. If you've got, I mean, not just 2011, I believe they were talking forward, as I recall. They were talking about 2011, but they were also talking about 2012 and a recovery. I'm so focused on 2011 I'm trying to reboot here. We're examining issues that are beyond the one-year horizon. Right, and we actually used their information to look at what might build. But the gist of what I took away is that this is going to be a slow and moderate recovery because of the high unemployment. That unemployment was not going to drop dramatically, it would drop slowly. So that all of calendar 10 and into calendar 11, they felt that that would be the traits. They didn't see the economy picking up from our revenue base until second quarter of calendar 2011. So they're saying basically we're slogging ahead slowly but surely and trying to build momentum, but that a real turnaround wasn't going to be seen significantly until second quarter of calendar 2011, which is fourth quarter of our fiscal year. Is that answering your question? Yeah, thank you. It helps. So the pickup was, confirm that one more time or just say that one more time what they said, when the predicted revenue in the withholding areas? Well, it would slowly show up this year because our unemployment will be slightly less than last year and employers will expand their use of current employees. We will get that slight pickup, that's where that half a percent comes from, before employers actually go out and hire additional employees. So the unemployment rate will not grow very much because as business exercises that internal capacity that they already have from their rollback and cutting people's hours and therefore the unemployment rate is not going to change. It's not going to be until next spring that the true new hires would go on to the payroll and the unemployment rate would recover to more normal levels. I'm hedging, I don't remember numbers. I don't know that they quoted numbers to us. Linda, you seem like you wanted to say something. And I guess what I would add, and Bill did cover this on the net profit side, and I'm sure as a business owner you've seen this as well, as those profits are increasing because employers are taking advantage of the efficiencies they've found with smaller workforces, we are getting a lift from the net profit side of the equation, which, Bill, I'm not sure if that was before. Is it the next? You're saying that in April? When are you seeing, where are you seeing the increase in net profits? Well, we're beginning, as we've seen the earnings reports, thank you, yes, in April we were, we'll be seeing that, but as we've been seeing earnings reports across the country, obviously we're starting to see earnings pick up nationally. And as we talk to these economists, they felt pretty strongly that we would see it in this particular line item much sooner because they are picking up efficiencies in the workforce. And so I think it's important for us to understand the sources and when they're going to hit, to your point, but really 2012 is when we're going to see the bigger lift from both areas. Have we seen any indicators of the local net profit numbers going up in the last month or last? I mean, you're getting weekly indicators. Right. Bill can answer that. In fact, No, we're in the trough on the net profits because what is being paid in April of 2010 is reflecting the profitability of calendar 2009. So what we're looking at in our 2011 budget is calendar 2010's profitability that is then reported and paid to us April 15th of next year. Does that help clarify? Yes, to some extent. So Council Member Beard had asked about April. Did you get to ask it? You had asked earlier about April revenue numbers. Yes, I just wondered if you had taken a glimpse of how we did in April. Yeah. You did? I understand, you know, was that an audit or whatever? Right. I'm hoping to have numbers to see tomorrow. But net profits are soft as we predicted they would be. We're trying to see whether withholdings is as soft as they were the last two months or whether we're gaining ground there. And we're hopeful that that will be in the final numbers. Okay. I'm talking about for the month of April. Thank you. Okay. Council Member James. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question actually about a bonding question. It's not related to what's sort of related to the revenue, but I don't know if this is the appropriate time. It was based on the earlier conversation. Is that okay? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Rumpke. Earlier there was some conversation about bonding, and the conversation was about increasing of debt service based on more bonding. And what wasn't mentioned, which I'd like for you to refer to this time maybe, is the I don't know what the right terminology is, but the release of or relief of any debt. So will we have any debt that will be termed out or paid, any bonding that will be paid off that we're currently paying debt service on that will be relieved at that point, that as we're discussing any additional bonding, we need to take that into consideration, plus Bill just mentioned about the earnings report and the assumptions of the two experts that say in 2012 we should be seeing a lift. Are we taking those assumptions into thought as we're talking about bonding as well? So I'm going to answer the second part first, if that's okay. And the answer is yes, we are taking that into our assumptions as we projected the revenue out, and I think I'm going to go back to March when we had Hilliard-Lyons and did that presentation, or we provided the revenue projections for them in that particular presentation. And then as far as debt rolling off, we absolutely have debt rolling off. And I don't have that, do you all have that number, two and a half million coming off in 11? And that's in, is that the debt service or is that the principal rolling off? Okay, is that our debt service? We've got that number, but to answer your question, yes, and that has been taken into consideration again in that layering presentation that we brought forth. It shows debt service coming off and then the new debt service rolling on so that you could have the combined blended amount that you would be looking at each year for that particular bond. So if you think about that cantilevered analysis where we showed the bond across the various years, and I don't know if they're trying to get that up there on the, and I was able to bring the Hilliard presentation back as well. I think Councilmember Myers, thank you, gosh, thank you. Councilmember Myers had asked me for that, if you all wanted to see that layering effect again. Okay, and if there would be a way, I know we've talked about this since I've been on council, and maybe the year, I think the year before I came on council, I remember watching a council meeting, and there was, I don't know if it was debt service money, and maybe other council members that were here will remember, but there was discussion around the horseshoe about there was money that was not leftover, but there was some kind of a pot of money that were there, and council members were not during budget time, but at a later point discussing some projects, and I guess where I'm going is we did that, we did the roundtable, and we talked about CIP projects, and we prioritized, and even after prioritizing, we still have things that come up. If you could help us to establish a process for introducing new bonding projects based on the assumptions of revenue projections and roll-off of debt service, I think that would be so helpful, because we have this conversation every single time, and there still isn't a process set forth. And if you remember, and again, it might have been the March budget and finance, or it was February, we talked about bringing forth a debt management plan and that whole process, and that's what we are working on in that context, because it is important to understand if you're going to put, you know, bond roads for another three million, what does that do, and what is the impact, and what's rolling off that year, and do we have bottlenecks in certain years that we need to be cognizant of so that you can make good decisions, not just in a vacuum for FY11, but on out. And I think that's what you're asking. And that's exactly what I'm asking, and somehow we've got to incorporate some things, because I know when Hilliard said that her assumptions were made on current conditions only, so we talked about what about new, I mean, we know that stimulus dollars were invested in brand-new companies that maybe did things like green technology that didn't exist before, so we don't have assumptions. We don't have a history on which to base those things. So when we're doing our revenue projections and such, that's not even incorporated. And we need some kind of way to go back to that more frequently to see what are the changes in the market based on new companies, new technologies, new things that are happening now that the economy is different. Because I struggle with agreeing with their assumptions, because I know that there are new industries that are not taken into account there, and new types of jobs that are set forth that we're not able to capture. So I see holes in it, but we need some kind of way to come back and address that on a regular basis that council's aware of as well, that makes us a little bit more in touch with it. I don't know what the answer to that is, but it just seems like there's a gap there. We kind of take what's handed to us, but we're not really testing the waters for what's new that's happening there. And I think as budget and finance, as we expand putting together the debt management plan, but I think you're also referring to the revenue projection aspect of our overall financial statement, understanding and updating those assumptions on a more regular basis. Is that what you're talking about? And maybe, and obviously Council Member Stinnon is not here at this moment, but that could be part of a regular agenda item for budget and finance to bring forth to the whole council. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We were, are there any more questions about the revenue? Typically as Council Member Gordon and Council Member Ellinger were commenting, the general protocol has been that the council would adopt the revenue projection at this meeting. Is there a sense that council is prepared to do that today? No. I don't see a sense that there's a willingness to go ahead with that today. All right. So can we move back to the capital projects? All right. Council Member Myers, you had asked about the presentation by the Hilliard Lions. Yes. Just to refresh, why don't you share with us what that question is. Do you have it? Okay. Hold just a minute, please. No, it's all right. What I wanted to do was, could Yes, sir. Can we put that over the projector so everybody can see that? And it is that's prior to the mayor's proposed. Okay. How difficult would it be for you to look at that based on the mayor's proposed and see what changes would be there? And first, can you start? Could either one of you explain this slide for everybody watching before you do that? I won't be able to talk about the numbers itself. I apologize because I'm having trouble seeing it. If you recall, the orange part of the little mountain there was where we were as of February 17th. And that was before any I mean, that was after the bonds that we took for the geo bonds that we took forth in late January. And I'm sorry, I can't remember who asked me this question earlier, but council member James, you were asking about debt rolling off. You can see the trend of that particular debt rolling off the orange. So it's, you know, you have a stagnant amount in time and it's going to roll off over time. Over a period of years, then the blue. And this is when we were talking about the impact of the pension bonds. The blue indicates the pension. And you can see in year and forgive me, I can't see that very well. It looks like in year 2015, we kind of hit a peak there as far as our debt service goes. And then it kind of tapers off and then we'll see that debt rolling off between now and the year 20, looks like 2032. So if you if you look at the remaining, which is the top, that would be and Bill, you'll have to help me here. Is that the combination of the two of all of our CIP? This assumption, right? So we had given them a set of assumptions and it's in that book. And obviously I can't tell you the amount, but that was the amount of additional CIP we had projected out over several years to your point, council member James, of just general things we needed to do. Bill, was it like 30 million? We'd have to look. I can give you those numbers, council member Myers, but that that's what that last peak is. So you can see if we average and I'm just talking off the top of my head. If we average 20 million dollars a year or 25 million dollars a year in CIP each year, you can see what that does over and above what we already have. To your point, the if we bonded everything we needed to to address the unfunded liability in the pension and then that additional annual needs for roads or whatever infrastructure and capital projects that the council might bring forth. And so I can get the book when we're finished and tell you what that assumption is. And that's how they built that graph. The full CIP, which is the top right graphical line. Does that include what we just did in January? Yes. So when you look at that hill, that mountain, in fact, the orange, that's the the January piece is included in the orange. And so when you look at it in total, the answer to the question is yes. OK, so then the full CIP designation, is it is it is it accurate to say that there's nothing that's just a projection? There's no actual projects that we could point to. We were just trying to put a projection together based on, I guess, more level types of CIP bonding. And again, I can look it up here in just a second, but let's say it was 25 million a year. So we plug that in and maybe it went up to 30 million a year. And again, I can read that to you. But it wasn't OK, we're going to build the government center or we're going to do the ESSC or anything like that. OK, so that list that we had before this that we're getting ready to talk about is not figured in that. That's just looking at a baseline. If we took 20 million a year and bonded it, then this is what it would look like. That is correct. That peak up there, which looks like about 20. It's about 50. It's almost at 50 million as far as the number of dollars bonded. And it looks like it's 2018, 2017, 2018, as far as the year itself of when we hit the peak. OK, maybe it looks like maybe 2016. OK, thank you for that pointer. So do we know is that what you're talking about when you say you need to look at the book? Do you know what our average has been over the last 10 years, what we've bonded? Bill, I don't know that I brought that down here, but we that little candle leaver schedule that we had. We have that and can get that back to you. So the answer is I have that. I just don't have it off the top of my head. OK, just a couple more questions and I'll give up the floor. That peak up there again back in 2015, 2016. What does that represent with respect to our 15 percent? Have we that the other line is going is that green? I'm kind of colorblind. Do you see the green aspect of that? And I guess I didn't explain that when I was going through all the various colors, the green. You can point. Thank you. The green portion is that 15 percent. OK, so so you see. So actually, well, before it's sort of if we do what we always do, it looks like about 2013. We're going to go above. We're going to go above the 15th. Yeah. So the reason I wanted to. That's really what I wanted to illustrate. OK, so as we look at this other spreadsheet here that you had before this, anything we do contributes to that happening. That's correct. And when our our underwriters were here and they presented this, what did they think would happen if that takes place with respect to going over the 15 percent? Yes. And I what impact does it have on us as a municipality? Well, I can tell you what the bond rating agency said to us the last time around. I mean, they we are part of peer groups, obviously, across the country, and they had two primary concerns. We've talked about the liquidity concern, but they also talk about the fact that we need to stay within, you know, the 10 to 15 percent parameter. I mean, it used to be that 10 percent was the rule of thumb. And I think in these days and times that they understand that municipalities are under tremendous stress. So it's really a 10 to 15 percent window. I think when you get above that, they're going to look I don't think I know they're they're going to step back and say, can they really manage this level of debt? And then it goes back to the revenue conversation. What is our ability to pay and what are those sources to pay for this kind of debt? So, you know, if you spiked up one year, is it going to cause the world to end? I don't know that that would be the case, but I think what we need to think about is do we have a plan and is it more than one year plan? And that's why Council Member Stennett asked us to, you know, through budget and finance to really roll up our sleeves and put that debt management plan together. So it's not we're not just looking at it in a in a one or two year. We're looking at five years minimum. So to be clear, if we go they said that the underwriter said that if we go above that 15 percent, then it's probably going to have a negative impact on our bond rating and our interest rate when we borrow. It will affect it will impact the cost of borrowing now to the what they could. Well, it wouldn't be positive. There's nothing about that. It's going to make us have a better rating or a lower interest rate. It's going to be a negative. OK, so Council Member Myers. But you're on a track here that we need to understand. The main point is that if we look at this list in front of us and we start adding things off this list and saying, let's borrow this, let's kick the can down the street, we're causing that problem to come sooner. And my five minutes is up, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Council Member Blues has said that he will allow Mr. Southern, our budget specialist, to give us a, Jerry, if you'll tell us where we are today, just give us a reminder where we are right now, where we are on our schedule. What we'll need to be doing, and I think the context for this is we know that there are constraints here that we're dealing with in terms of revenues. We know that the constraints in terms of the appetite for new projects and that we'll need to be working through that as we develop our budget. I think it'd be healthy, worthwhile for you to share with us where we are right now. Well, today, I mean, you're on target because today, the 6th, you spoke about revenue projections. I would urge you not to move on considering expenditures, bonding, or anything else until you reach a comfort level of what your revenues are going to be. Then you'll have a better idea of what you can afford. The next meeting on the schedule is May the 20th. So I would, whatever, and I sense that council doesn't want to accept any revenue projections today. So unless you want to have a meeting prior to the 20th, the earliest that you could accept your revenue projections would be on May the 20th. All right. Even if we had to push back some of the reporting for the council links, I think the revenue was probably the most important item that you have to accept. Okay. Any comments, any questions while we've got your, Council Member Myers? I guess I would ask the question, why can we not have a meeting on Monday, May 11th? I know that there's some council members, I think there's only two, this coming Tuesday, there's only two council members I think that are going on a chamber trip. So if the other 13 are able to meet, then why do we not do that? Sounds good. Council Member Gordon. Oh, I thought you had a quick question. Yeah, to Jerry. Council Member James, go ahead. Jerry, you, we were talking about, earlier we were talking about fees and such, and Council Member Gordon talked about public hearings usually were held before we, has that been the tradition that in the past we have the hearing before we determine fees and such that will be implicated in the budget? It's tradition. Okay. But it's not built into any ordinance, it's traditional that if we're raising a fee or a tax, we hold a public hearing. Even during, during the budget process that's happened previously before? I don't recall the increased fees have ever been built into a budget. I see. The year that the health tax was built into the budget, the council redid the budget. So the reason I mentioned that is because the hearing is on the 20th. The public hearing is on May the 20th. So I, I don't know, Jerry, if you, anything that we do, I, I think if we have a meeting before that time I would love to be able to have the discussion about any increase of fees as it, as it's related to revenues that are assumed in the budget. I'd like to have that hearing first to hear from our citizens. Well, you can accept the revenues. And I remember in June you're going to ratify the budget.  So as long as you have a meeting prior to ratification of public meeting, that I think could be okay. And the 20th would allow for that. Well, the, well, yeah, the, the problem with accepting the revenue would be that it could include the increase in fees. It would, it would agree to. So you still have some time subsequent to that. If you, if you thought there was public opposition to the effect that you would want to change. Yeah. I just wouldn't want the links to go ahead and do the, do all the conversation based upon the assumptions that passed in some kind of general accepted revenue without having that conversation with the constituents first. Thank you. Vice mayor. Thank you. Council member James. Council member Crosby. Yes. Thank you. Vice mayor. I have a question. And I can't remember if I publicly have asked this question or not, because we've been in so many meetings regarding this between our links and everything. Can somebody again, explain to us why we are on our, I'm looking at the FY two 11 operating capital, and I'm looking into the bond funds for two 11. Why are we with some of our dedicated, and I'm just going to pull out the first page just because it's right here in front of me with, with some of our dedicated funds, why are we for, for example, division of waste management, why are we bonding Rosy's and trash, trash cans and things? Lenny's instead of paying for them out of the fund. We were trying to maintain the highest level of liquidity across the urban County government. So what we had brought forth is to bond where we could bond this year. We, and I apologize. I'm not sure if you were here when we were talking about the reimbursements from the funds was one of the options that we could look at where we would bond under a general obligation bond, but then the let's say the urban service fund or the, the water quality fund or whatever would then reimburse for the items that were bonded for under that general obligation fund. That was one of the options, but the primary reason that we were bringing forth the bonding list is to try to maintain the overall liquidity for the urban County government because of the feedback that we had received from our bond rating agencies. And so that was the primary reason. I understand the trying to show the overall liquidity, but for example, when you're bonding all these different things, I don't think you can pay for, I guess, are you showing that with other dedicated fees? Are you, I mean, well, again, what would happen is we would, we would actually pay for them through reimbursements. I understand that you've explained that very well. What I'm saying though, is you're using funds where there is money available to show liquidity for the overall government. When our taxpayers are paying for these types of items already with that fee, but we're, we're basically, it sounds to me like I don't for backup, lack of a better term, it's like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul. It sounds to me like I don't for backup, lack of a better term, it's like we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. We're trying to show that as a government, we have all this money and this is the area we have it because our taxpayers are paying this fee, but it's, it's being used. I would assume the surplus or the additional dollars are being used to show that we have liquidity as an entire government and really not putting it towards what it should be going towards. I mean, it just sounds like that's what we're doing. Well, I don't want to second guess the rating agencies. We've had those conversations about, you know, whether they should be looking at the individual or the urban County government as a whole. Their practice is to look at the urban County government as a whole. And I, and I understand what you're asking. So I can't looking at it as a whole, but we're utilizing just one small area where we have cash available or to show liquidity. And there, but they're looking at us as a whole. If they're looking at us as a whole, we're probably not doing so hot and all across all of government, I guess is more my point. And, and we're utilizing our dedicated fees to show this liquidity is, isn't that what you're saying? In their mind, cash is cash. And whether we do enter fund borrowing or not, they look at our ability to tap into those on, on a very short term or special basis, because they know at the end of the day that you as council have the ability to go out. And, and raise it, raise a fee or provide tax. And so rightly or wrongly, that's how they look at our liquidity position. Council member Crosby. I'll have follow up for you when we meet individually. Thank you. Okay. Council member Gordon. Thank you. Vice mayor. Well, I guess, Jerry, I based on council member Crosby's questions and statements. I do have a question on this operating capital bond fund for the general fund. It's not just the Rosie's Lenny's and Herbie's. It's the pitch in containers. It's $20,000 of dumpster carts. It's 10,500 of loan a box. I mean, I think those are all in a, aren't they in a similar category. I would presume that. If the council didn't want to do that, we will vote not to do that. I, I think one of the things for me that's difficult about this recommendation is it's fairly significant change. I believe in what we've done in the past. And so I think that we probably need to have a lot of further conversation about this. And then I was going to ask for your help, Jerry on based on the motion I'm going to make, which is that we schedule a committee of the whole on may 11th at three 30. I was going to say three, but there's some people who can't get there till three 30. And then we would rely on you to help us flush out the agenda. Okay. So that's my motion. Vice mayor motion. Is there a second? Okay. Didn't hear a second by council members. Is there any discussion or in motion? Hearing none. All in favor. I was just going to say that I don't think I can make it at that time. I have scheduled because we were supposed to be off on that day. I've scheduled. I could do it earlier in the day, but I cannot do it later in the day. If anybody wants to consider the morning, I'm not going on the trip, but I just have a conflict. What about earlier in the morning? I've got it earlier in the morning. So who can do it earlier in the morning, say 10 o'clock? Would 10 o'clock work? 10? How are we? Linda cannot. 11? No, we need you here. How about 12? Nine? Everybody still good at nine? Nine o'clock? About eight. All right. Hold your hand up high, please. We're here at nine o'clock. Who cannot do it at nine o'clock in the morning? Cannot. Right. Okay. It looks like nine o'clock in the morning. Sir? Yes, sir. On the 11th. All right. There is a vote. We have not yet voted. All right. Now we've, Council Member Gordon, you're good with amending to nine o'clock. Council Member Crosby. I'd like, you want me to amend your motion? Do I have to do that? My motion said 3.30, and since I have appointments all morning, I'm going to let you amend it if you want. Okay. I'd like to amend the motion to begin the meeting at nine a.m. Motion is second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion. Motion carries. Oh, sorry. We didn't. All right. So the meeting has been in schedule for May the 11th at nine o'clock. And Jerry, you're going to help us with the agenda, right? All right. All right. We can move now. Council Member James. Yeah, there's people on the screen. There are people on the monitor. I was going to try to suggest when we can to move to the Council Member McCord's issue on the pools. I have another question. You have another question? Commissioner Rumke. Okay. Regarding this issue. Thank you. Several times we've talked today about highest overall liquidity and inclusion of the special funds as far as rating is concerned. I know that in our conversations about bonding before that, I think the assumption has been made that when we talk about debt ratio, we're talking about the general fund dollars. That's correct. So if the rating agency is saying that we can use the general funds for overall liquidity, can we not use that as a basis for the debt ratio determination as well? Okay. I want to make sure I'm going to answer your question correctly. So are you asking me why they're looking at the overall liquidity of the government if we're only dependent on the general fund revenue? Is that what you're asking? I'm saying if we're going to use, if we would potentially use special funds to pay on a bond, would we not have to take all of those assets into account, or would we not be able to take all of those assets into account when we're talking about debt ratio? So when we talk about the amount of which we would, the comfort zone that we are, I mean, I know that we've talked about, I don't know, 12%, 15%, whatever. Why could we not increase that? The general fund, we were talking about issuing bonds out of the other funds and what those criteria are in order to be able to do that. If you're looking at a general obligation, it's the repayment source is from the general fund revenue. So they're not going to look to repayment from those other funds. What they're saying is is that if the city got in a bind and they know you have taxing authority, that in an interim, if the bond holders, you have access to other cash that you could make your bond payment while you're going back out to levy a tax to make your bond payment and repay these other funds. So the answer is no, they won't let you count these others because they look specifically to the general fund. I know it's very confusing and I'm happy to spend more time on it. No, I mean, it's clear. It just, it doesn't, it just doesn't seem correct. I mean, but if they said it, I mean, you know how I feel about all that anyway, but if they're saying that, that's fine, but it just doesn't seem quite it just doesn't seem quite fair from the perspective of what we have access to completely. That's all. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member James, Council Member Myers, and Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I have a question for Commissioner Rumke. I hate to beat a dead horse, but this conversation about borrowing money for things out of the general fund or bonding things and then using the dedicated funds to pay back the bonds. To me that seems like that if you're a citizen paying taxes, that you're paying the debt service on something needlessly because you already taxed into that dedicated fund to pay for the things that are supposed to be handled in that dedicated fund. And now apart from that, you're being taxed or part of your tax money is being used to pay the debt service on those items which should have been paid for in cash out of that dedicated tax that you were told is being levied to take care of the things under that department. So help me understand why that's a wise thing to do. Well, I think a couple things come to mind, and I was making a couple notes back there. Up until recently when we've had, and this is before I joined the government, you've basically been on a pay-as-you-go, and you really didn't do a lot of bonding. You bonded for some of the basics, but you didn't do a lot of bonding. And then over the last couple years we've gone from doing $15 or $20 million and then all of a sudden we do this $63 million bond and blah, blah, blah, blah. And so now all of a sudden you're dealing with a couple things. You have the ability to borrow at a very low interest rate, so we're obviously trying to leverage that off of being able to afford to pay it back. So we want to take advantage where it does make sense. But with respect to the actual use of bonding funds, and again, this is totally up to the council, but what we were trying to bring forth is how do we keep liquidity in place. It's not that at the end of the day the bond rating agencies tell us what to do. In fact, they'll tell you, look, we're just making recommendations for our leadership to consider. But they were very, very specific. I mean, more than specific, giving us a negative outlook because they feel like we've got a lot of debt and we have spent down these other balances. We've bought garbage trucks. We've bought several things, and we pay cash for them. And that's good. I mean, when you can walk in and have the title to a vehicle and you don't have any debt on it, that's a great thing. But they, again, rightly or wrongly in our eyes, they did consider those other fund balances as they were assessing what our rating is. And so I think what we as a leadership group need to look at is should we not bond for these and spend down in those various funds, right, to your point, then what is that going to do to our overall cost to borrow? Because our bond rating is based on ‑‑ I mean, our bond rating sets in the market what we're going to be able to borrow money at. So as you're considering these items, and let's say you all decide not to ‑‑ you take that whole package out of Rosy's and Herbie's and whatever, and you decide to pay for it out of the funds, we're going to be spending down that liquidity, and it may or may not, and they're telling us it will, so I'm just being very candid, will have an effect on our rating, which will have an effect on our ability to borrow at the wonderful rates that we're borrowing at. Now, I think the analysis that everybody needs to step back and look at is, okay, how much, what is that impact? So I know that's probably more detail than you were looking for. Well, I guess we have a tale of two cities here then, because a few minutes ago I asked you to put that PowerPoint presentation up there, and the same folks that rate our bonds said, if we go over that 15 percent, it's going to have a negative impact on our ability to borrow money at a low interest rate. It is. I mean, we're in a double‑edged ‑‑ we have a double‑edged sword here. We've got a liquidity issue, and we have the fact that we have a lot of debt. So I guess the question is not ‑‑ I guess the question is, why are we still borrowing then? Because it makes no sense. I understand if you ‑‑ it would make more sense to borrow the money for a truck and depreciate that out than to pay cash for the truck, maybe. But to pay interest on Herbie's makes no sense at all, because I don't think they can be depreciated out. They can, or we wouldn't have put it on there. So I don't want to disagree with you, but there is a ‑‑ I mean, it's a shorter life, no question. So I just want you to know when we brought it forth, it was with the idea of maintaining liquidity as you looked at this. Okay. We're running against the clock here. Mr. McCord was up, but Mr. Stennett, you're ‑‑ Whatever works. You all rotated there. I just want to ask you one question while we're on that. Have we looked at revenue bonds from that fund? Have we looked at revenue bonds? Rather than GEO from the solid waste fund. I don't think we've looked at that, no. Well, can we? I mean, that may be a solution, because you're talking $7 million of cash if you choose to use that fund just to pay them off, versus using that same fund but not $7 million all at once and doing a revenue bond from the revenue that people are paying from it. We can certainly take a look at it. It will be subject, obviously, as you know, to all of the ‑‑ What I'm getting to is the bonding agency said, if I'm not mistaken in our last meeting with them, that there's a difference in the way they're looking at capacity versus a revenue bond versus a GEO bond. They don't lump them together. So if there is, then we may not be endangering our capacity and do a revenue bond instead. At a higher rate. Well, and that's the tradeoff. We don't damage our capacity. No, no, no, that's what I'm saying. You have to balance it. That's our interest. And that's what homeowners are doing right now all over the country. So I think the public understands that concept. So I just want to make sure we get that information. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to suggest as well, Commissioner Rumke, if you'd ask Chip Sutherland if he could join us on the 11th, I think it would be worthwhile to have Hilliard Lyons here for any of these questions where we need realtime information. And Vice Mayor, if I may suggest, if Chip can't get here since that's just a day and a half away, more or less, our new budget director just having come out of the municipal finance sector at Ross Sinclair has a similar background to Chip, so we will have some resources here for the council. Okay. All right. Mr. Councilman McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As was passed out to you at the end of work session, we have a situation in parks that we as a council need to give some direction to. And there's really two issues. And after kind of in between on our recess, what we've done is separated those out and kind of segregated those out. I've asked Jerry Hancock to provide some detailed information for council members with regard to the potential raising of fees for pools and golf. And he's going to distribute that, and we're going to move that to the 20th when we get together. What that does is it gives council members time to digest these numbers, to ask specific questions individually. We will have the 11th as a meeting to be together and ask questions if we need to. It gives council members a lot of time to ask the questions about whether we should or shouldn't raise fees for golf and for pools. On the 20th, we can also tie that to a public meeting so we can incorporate the public's input. Now, we also will have to act fairly quickly, probably have a first reading on it that night if we move forward with it. But I wanted to put that into your hands and give you time to look at that at your leisure, because it is a very important decision we have to make. With respect to that, we have the other issue that we have to really decide on tonight and or on Tuesday, now that we have a special council meeting. And basically what we have before us is in the mayor's proposed budget, there was a savings of $42,000 from closing two pools, and those pools were being recommended for closure for a couple of reasons, primarily usage, volumes, and so forth. And as the council link looked at that, we were instructed by PARPS to take a very hard look at the time frames they need to hire people, get them in the system, train them in Red Cross, CPR, and so forth and so on. So what I'd like to do is segment that piece out tonight, and we can carry this over into Tuesday because I have two minutes to basically put this before you. But I want to explain what you're looking at, what we need to vote on on Tuesday. The mayor's recommendation was that we close Berry Hill and Constitution Parks pools, excuse me, for a savings of $42,000. Based upon that, looking at how we came to the conclusion of those two parks, we realized there were two other parks that fell into that category, Douglas and Piccadilly pools, and if we were going to use that criteria and be fair across the board, option B is what that would look like. Option C is what if we opened all of our pools, including Berry Hill and Constitution, but closed them all on August 1st, basically a month before the end of the season. That's what the savings would be. The fourth option, which is the option that I've prepared to make a motion for on Tuesday, is really probably the most equitable in that we look to open all of our pools on the first day open and keep them all open until August 1st and leaving the four aquatic centers open from August 1st until the end of the season. And what that would do is basically it would give us two weeks of time where kids are actually not in school that could potentially use it. So what I'd like to do is carry this over to Tuesday, let you have some time to think about it. Granted, there's a million ways we could split this, but I am prepared to make a motion on Tuesday that we go with option four, and we can take up discussion on Tuesday as to what the council wants to do. But the parks does need an answer really on Tuesday, so I am prepared to move that forward. Thank you, Council Member McCord. Council Member Gordon has a question related to the process. Quick question, Council Member McCord. You said we would take up the fee question on the 20th. Are you thinking that we would take that up in the CAL? Because we don't have a special council meeting. We only have the mayor's proposed budget hearing. Or were you thinking we should make a motion to schedule a special council meeting? Logan, we can do it during the CAL. The CAL won't bring it. It wouldn't come forward exactly that day from the CAL. Council Member Gordon is correct. There is a public hearing scheduled on the 20th. And so in order to have another council meeting prior to the 27th where we could vote, where you all could take action on something, we would either have to schedule a meeting at the same time, a special meeting at the same time, or have a special meeting at the work session the following Tuesday, which I believe would be the 25th, if you wanted to act within the time frame that Mr. Hancock has suggested. And so when would the public, if the council wanted to have a public hearing on increasing the fees, would we schedule that in conjunction with the mayor's proposed budget public hearing? I think that would be appropriate since it's part of the budget now, as I understand it. It would be part of that whole public hearing, Council Member. Well, given that, I'll go ahead and see how this motion flies. I move to schedule a special meeting to hear, to attend to the proposed increase in fees on May the 25th at 3 o'clock p.m. Second. For the work session. There's a motion and a second to schedule a special meeting at 3 o'clock. On May the 25th. On May the 25th before the work session. There's a motion and a second by Council Member McCord. Is there a discussion? Restate the motion. The motion is to schedule a special council meeting on May 25th at 3 p.m. to hear the first reading of proposed increases in fees. Well, when's the first reading? There is no meeting scheduled that night. It's only a public hearing on the mayor's proposed budget. Okay. Is it clear? Motion? All right. All in favor? Please indicate by saying I'll oppose. No. Motion carries. Meeting is scheduled. All right. Is there anything more to come before the committee of the whole? One final thing. Just for Council Members to know that Parks has to schedule Red Cross training on the 23rd. So, again, I plan on bringing forward what we want to do with regard to the pools on the 11th so we can put that to bed. But I want to give you the time frames that they're working up against. All right. Vice Mayor, if I might. Earlier in the meeting, I understood that we were going to try to do a first reading tonight, and we have prepared the paperwork for that to occur. The public hearing on the if you wanted to have the public hearing before you actually voted on it, what has been proposed is you would be able to do that. You could have the public hearing on the 20th and then come back on the 23rd and have the second read. I think Mr. Hancock needs to address the timing issue because he's got the schedule we're trying to fit into. Council, the pools will open, the aquatic centers will open on the 29th. And I think some public notice about the increase is appropriate. So what we've suggested here of having first reading tonight, a public meeting on the 20th, second reading subsequent to that works okay. But I also really need to have some direction on opening pools or not. They need to be cleaned, need to be painted. I need to wait a week. I need to fill them. I need to run the filtration systems. I need to hire people, put them on the payroll, train them, et cetera. Unfortunately, we brought this up at the Lynx on April 20th, which hasn't given us much time, and this week's schedule got altered. I really am in a bind for hiring people to open the pools on time. Vice Mayor, if I might, I think I might have confused things a bit here. We've got two separate issues. One is the closing of the pools, and that's what's ready for first reading tonight. I'm sorry. And then the fee issue is the second schedule that we're talking about now, so I apologize for any confusion. Okay. All right. Council Member Gordon. I don't know if Council Member McCord could bring this as a walk-on tonight. And that's what we have prepared in accordance with the prior discussion. And that was before we ran out of time and, you know, we got into revenues. I was prepared to make a motion tonight for number D, the fourth one there, based upon what we had found. I can still make that motion and see if it passes. If not, then we'll take it up Tuesday. Parliamentarian, what do we do? That's fine. Council Member Stanton. The problem still is, if we don't have second reading by, I mean, you need the second reading by Tuesday, really, Jerry, because you've got to paint the pools, you've got to fill them, and if we do second reading on the 25th, you're not going to have enough time. Or if we even do the 20th, you're still not going to have nine days to get all that done. That's exactly right. We need a special meeting Tuesday. Yes, sir. Really. We need to do background checks and a variety of things that take time. We can do it on Tuesday. Yeah, I'm making a motion that we schedule a special meeting on Tuesday for determining the opening and closing of the pools for this same time as the CAL meeting before the CAL at 9 a.m. Second. Because if we don't. Do we have the motion for? Do we have the motion on? No, we had the motion and we passed the motion for. Right. Okay. So this is a new motion. All right. For a new special meeting. Can you state that again? A new special council meeting on Tuesday, May the 11th at 9 a.m. to discuss the opening and closing of the pools for this pool season. Second. Motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Now we take a. Is there any further? Okay. With that objection. With that. Without objection, we are adjourned.