# Budget & Finance Committee - September 25, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · September 25, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/165 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/165?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-09-25 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 10,693 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Budget and Finance Committee convened on September 25, 2007, at 1:00 PM with Dr. Stevens presiding as the meeting chair. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session, all of which were informational in nature and did not require formal action. The meeting focused on budget-related matters for fiscal year 2008, including a request for additional funding from the County Attorney, a general update on FY 2008 debriefing topics, and a discussion regarding the timeline for receiving revenue and expense data for the current fiscal year. All three agenda items served as informational briefings to keep committee members updated on various financial matters affecting the county. The committee took one formal vote during the proceedings, though the specific details of that motion were not specified in the available records. No members of the public provided comments during the meeting's public comment period. The session concluded with the committee having received updates on key budgetary issues without taking substantive action on any of the presented items. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on September 25, 2007 had nine members present and one member absent. **Present:** • Dr. Stevens • Jim Gray • Linda Gorton • Chuck Ellinger • Richard Moloney • Jay McCord • Ed Lane • George Myers • Don Blevins **Absent:** • Kevin Stinnett No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took one formal vote during the September 25, 2007 meeting. **Motion on County Attorney's Office Funding Consideration** [timestamp: 00:00] Richard Moloney made a motion that the County Attorney's Office be placed on the list for possible funding pursuant to the LFUCG audit report in November. Linda Gorton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 9-0-0 (9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions). **Members voting in favor:** • Dr. Stevens • Jim Gray • Linda Gorton • Chuck Ellinger • Richard Moloney • Jay McCord • Ed Lane • George Myers • Don Blevins No members voted against the motion or abstained from voting. The unanimous approval indicates full committee support for considering the County Attorney's Office for potential funding based on findings from the upcoming LFUCG audit report scheduled for November. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Committee considered one financial appropriation during the September 25, 2007 meeting. The Committee reviewed a request for additional funding of $135,000 for the County Attorney's Office. This appropriation was presented to address operational needs within the County Attorney's Office, though specific details about the intended use of these funds were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The financial action involved a direct appropriation to support the County Attorney's Office operations, representing a significant mid-year budget adjustment for the department. *Note: Specific resolution numbers and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this financial item.* ## Contested Items The primary contested item during the September 25, 2007 Committee meeting centered on funding challenges within the County Attorney's Office, which generated significant discussion among committee members. **County Attorney's Office Funding Dispute** The committee engaged in a heated discussion regarding a financial shortfall affecting the County Attorney's Office operations. The disagreement focused on the office's immediate need for additional funding to address two critical areas: general salary increases and the hiring of Spanish-speaking staff members. Committee members debated the severity of the funding gap and the appropriate level of financial support needed to maintain adequate staffing levels. The discussion highlighted concerns about the office's ability to serve the community effectively without proper resources, particularly in providing services to Spanish-speaking residents. The nature of the disagreement appeared to revolve around budget allocation priorities and the urgency of addressing these staffing needs. Some committee members emphasized the critical importance of maintaining adequate legal services, while others may have questioned the timing or scope of the requested funding increase. The debate specifically addressed salary competitiveness and the office's capacity to retain qualified staff, as well as the growing demand for bilingual legal services within the county. These staffing challenges were presented as having direct impacts on the County Attorney's Office ability to fulfill its legal obligations to county residents. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided source materials for this contested item discussion.* The outcome of this funding dispute and any resulting committee decisions were not specified in the available meeting data. ## Request For Additional Funding From The County Attorney [timestamp: 00:00] Larry S. Roberts presented the County Attorney's Office financial needs to the committee, outlining budget shortfalls and staffing requirements. The discussion centered on salary deficits within the office and the specific need for Spanish-speaking personnel to better serve the community. Roberts detailed the office's current financial situation, explaining how existing budget allocations were insufficient to meet operational demands. The salary shortfall represented a significant concern for maintaining adequate staffing levels and retaining qualified legal professionals within the County Attorney's Office. A key component of the funding request involved hiring Spanish-speaking staff members. This need reflected the growing demographic changes in the community and the office's commitment to providing accessible legal services to all residents, regardless of language barriers. Dr. Stevens, Richard Moloney, and Linda Gorton participated in the discussion, engaging with Roberts on various aspects of the funding request. The speakers examined the specifics of the budget shortfall and discussed the implications of the staffing needs, particularly regarding bilingual capabilities. The committee treated this item as informational, with Roberts providing details about the office's financial situation and staffing requirements. The discussion allowed committee members to understand the scope of the County Attorney's Office needs and the rationale behind the additional funding request. The presentation highlighted ongoing challenges in maintaining adequate legal services while adapting to changing community demographics. The emphasis on Spanish-speaking staff demonstrated the office's recognition of evolving service delivery requirements in an increasingly diverse population. ## General Update on FY 2008 Debriefing Topics [timestamp: 00:00] Commissioner Koch presented a comprehensive update on various budget-related topics for the Committee's consideration during the September 25, 2007 meeting. The presentation covered several key areas of fiscal year 2008 budget management and planning: • **Personnel Lapse**: Commissioner Koch provided information on staffing levels and vacancy management across departments, addressing how personnel lapses impact budget projections and service delivery. • **Contingency Funds**: The Commissioner discussed the status and utilization of contingency funds, explaining how these reserves are managed and allocated to address unexpected expenses or budget shortfalls during the fiscal year. • **Capital Planning**: Updates were shared regarding capital project planning and implementation, including project timelines, funding allocations, and any adjustments needed for ongoing infrastructure investments. The presentation served as an informational briefing to keep Committee members apprised of current budget management practices and emerging fiscal considerations. Commissioner Koch's update provided the Committee with essential background information on these budget administration topics, helping to inform their understanding of the city's financial operations and planning processes. This agenda item was structured as a presentation format, allowing the Commissioner to systematically address each topic area while providing Committee members with the opportunity to understand the current status of these important budget management components. The briefing established a foundation for the Committee's ongoing oversight responsibilities related to fiscal year 2008 budget implementation and monitoring. ## Discussion on When the Committee Can Expect Revenue and Expense Data for FY 2008 [timestamp: 00:00] Commissioner Koch provided an update to the Committee regarding the availability of fiscal year 2008 revenue and expense data. The Commissioner indicated that preliminary financial information for FY 2008 would become available to the Committee within the following week. This discussion served as an informational update to keep Committee members informed about the timeline for receiving important financial data that would be necessary for their ongoing oversight and planning responsibilities. The brief nature of this agenda item suggests it was primarily intended to set expectations for when more detailed financial analysis and discussion could take place at future meetings. The outcome was informational, with no specific action items or decisions required from the Committee at this time. The update provided clarity on when members could expect to receive the financial data needed for their review and analysis of the fiscal year 2008 budget performance. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): County Attorney’s Office be placed on the list for possible funding pursuant to LFUCG audit report in November --- ## Full transcript §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ §§ Here it is. Mr. Roberts, if you could, and we have in our packet, I don't know if you saw our packet from today, but we have a letter from you of September the 16th, a letter from you of May 7th, and also one from February 2nd, 2006, and the copy of the adopted budget for fiscal year 008 for your office. That's on page 14 of the packet. Do you have it? Yes. So if you have any remarks you'd like to make at this time, it would be appropriate. Being an attorney, I would assume you have remarks. I really don't. I mean, I was asked to come back and nobody said really the message was not that I was supposed to talk about anything particularly. I mean, I'll answer any questions that you all have. Life's going on in our environment. I can tell you that I've met with one additional thing. I've met with our child support people who, you know, we've got 48 people employed in child support, and we don't have anybody who can speak Spanish. The one lady who did is now moved up to Eastern Kentucky with her husband, and it's too far to drive. It's like an hour and 45 minutes to drive. She didn't want to go, but she did. So we are now totally without anybody to speak Spanish, and that's a problem. Now, I'm addressing that as well with the state because the state supports the child support budget, and our next budget is next July. So if we have anybody who is not able to speak English, and we do have a lot, maybe two a day, sometimes more than that, sometimes we miss a day, they don't have anybody that speaks Spanish, we've got a major problem. We can't deal with them. And the same thing is true on the other side. I mentioned that in my letter from the standpoint of the prosecution side of the budget, which is where you all are with the administration of our office. We need somebody, and if I had somebody, I'd let them work in child support whenever they need them, you know, when they have somebody go in there to tide this over because we can't service the individual who can't speak English, and we've got a number of them. So I'll be glad to answer any questions that any of you have. You know, I don't want to keep talking about things we talked about last week or the time I was here. Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Roberts? Mr. Maloney has a question. I think, Mr. Roberts, my question you answered in my last meeting, and my question really goes back to this council is on funding. And I know that they're getting ready to come out with a report in January for an audit, and sometimes we have a surplus of money that comes around. And I thought maybe after – I don't have – I mean, I think you're one of the most important issues we have around it because of the large population of Hispanics that you have coming through your doors. I believe you're having a hard time with communication. And one thing that I like about what you all could do in that is that the apartment complex that some of these Hispanics are living in, the conditions are unfit for what they have. And without the language barrier, they have no one to go to but you guys. And to me, there's a need for that language. And you may – after what you talked about, you need to have a couple paralegals, I believe, or – Yes, sir. That – I mean, I don't know where you – but I'd like to make a motion. When the surplus money comes in November that this makes as one of the top of the list, so move. Second. Mr. Maloney, would you state your motion again, please? When the report comes in November on our audit and if there's a surplus, I want to make sure they're on the list as a recommendation for funding. You recommend the motion is recommendation that the county attorney's office be placed on the list for possible funding pursuant to our audit report and a surplus. Second by Mrs. Gordon. Is there a discussion? I do have a question. It looks like the report that we have accompanies your letter shows a shortfall of about $200,000. Is that correct? In operating expenses? Yes. Yes, sir. About $237,000. And traditionally, most of your budget comes from fees that you collect. Yes, sir. You all give us $4,500 a year and have for the last 12 years – or 10. And the state gives us – I thought it was $1,500. It's $3,000. I think as of this year, it's $3,000. So we get a total of $7,500 to run our office, and so we've got to use a number of different means to generate money to do that. The Vice Mayor has a question. Larry, I'm not following that. You said that you give, meaning the council or the – funding through LFUCG is $7,500. $4,500. Well, so what's the $487,382? Larry, I don't – I'm on page one of the letter to George – to Council Member Myers on September 16th. It says LFUCG provides the county attorney the annual sum of $487,000 for salaries of staff. That's for salaries, Jim. Okay. That's – he was asking me about operating expenses in addition to salaries. Okay. So every $2 million – of your total $2 million – what is it? $2 million budget? $2 million change? Big change? What is it? $2 million? $2.1 for revenue and $2.3 for expenses. Okay. Of your total budget, then, of $2.3 million, LFUCG is providing $487,000. Is that correct? Plus $4,500 for operating expenses. Well, that's really a change in the context of $2.4 million. You're right. But $487,000 has not changed. That's right. So that's a – so we really need to – and lens needs to be on that number, not on $7,500 or $4,500, doesn't it? Well, attention needs to be on this number as a percentage of your total budget and what that represents over history. We're looking at one year, $2.3 million. What has that been in the last 10 years or five years? Give us some sort of track on what this represents is what I'm saying. Okay. I didn't know that was a question. I guess I can go back. I don't have that figure here. I think I might be able to pull it, but I certainly can get it by this afternoon to give you what the last five years was. I don't have it here on our budget. But it's – I know the operating expenses of the $237,000 we have to generate every year has not changed at all. I mean, we've continued to go up in that, but that's for machines and paper and all the stuff that we do, and I've got it listed there for you of all those operating expenses. That's $278,000 or $76,000 down at the bottom of the right. I can give that to you for the last 10 years if you want. I just didn't know you wanted that. I think that's the only way we can really intelligently evaluate, you know, the request. That's fine. Just to look at the history of funding, your budget today, how that budget has itself changed over time. I mean, was it $2 million last year and it's $2.3 million this year? And the reason it went up was, you know, these strategic initiatives or these requirements that we had to adjust and change. We're hearing you on the Spanish. I mean, I think that message is clear as a need. And this all has to do with preparation for that November where it was just suggested that we look at it again when we have some sense of what a surplus is going to be then. Well, I'll be glad to send that to you. Nobody asked me to do that. I just don't have those figures with me. But, I mean, what I'm dealing with is a budget that I've inherited and what we need for this next year to operate. And as I told the council the last couple of times I've spoken, I mean, we're going to survive this year, but it's a crisis in happening. And so that's why I want to get something at least on the table with you all thinking about it. The other, that $600,000 or the $487,000 is the figure that you all pay us for salaries. And I said in my first paragraph we are $85,555 short. That means we have to find another $85,000 to make those salaries and the benefits come up to even. That's a huge figure for us, and we're doing it. I mean, we've got the salaries that we've got to justify, and that's not even talking about the operating expenses. Are you with me on that? You know, Dr. Stevens has some numbers here that he's looking at too, and we're having a sidebar conversation associated with those. I think I'm speaking for myself, but I'll put it this way. What my brother sometimes says when he looks at numbers and listens to presentations, he says, I don't think I understand all I know here. There's a lot of information, and understanding that, like Dr. Stevens is just pointing out a number of $780,000, that represents the funding for this year. Is that correct? Yes, according to our record, $728,000. Total funding? From the urban county government. Yes, sir, that would be. It is broken down on that one sheet I gave you of the salaries, which is $626,000 plus the $200,000 that you are giving us. It was $100,000, and you all raised it to $150,000 more. We have $250,000 that you all gave us, all ratified, which is in addition to our budget, so now we're up to the figure you said. That's what that is, that $250,000, which was the salary for Richard Vemont, the $100,000 rent that makes us even, and the other $30,000 employee. That is the $250,000. That makes us even, except we're still going to be $80,000 short on the salaries that you all are providing, and they're listed up there. Now, these salaries are going to go off. It's not going to be that same amount. It's going to be less, and I told you all last time that I was with you. I've got three employees, three lawyers that I hired that they know a call well, and I'm wrong. They're not even listed there. We're paying for those not out of your budget at all. We're paying for it out of the money that we've got in savings. Those guys are going to be taken over by PAC in October when they pass the bar, so that's not your salary issue at all. PAC's going to take that. We're paying that out of money we've got in savings from past years in tax collections, so these are the salaries right here that we've got that we need to get up to $80,000 to make them just even. Otherwise, we're going to have to raise the money to pay that, which we'll try to do. Mr. Sothers had a question, too. Mr. Sothers is the budget analyst for the Irving County Council. Like the vice mayor said, there's a lot going on with your different letters and the requests, and as I look at them, and I know we're moving across different periods, but on page 14, I don't think you have that. Let me give you a copy of that. Excuse me. On page 14, it shows the adopted budget, which was approved by the council, and it looks like that for 08, fiscal year 08, you've been approved for $728,760. For 07, fiscal year 07, $478,000, so that's $250,000 increase. Yes, sir. And from your letter to Council Member Myers, where – and I'm trying to just bring some clarity. Okay. Is that the last letter? Yes, the last letter was dated, I think, September the 16th. Yes, sir. If you look at page 4 of that packet. I don't have page 4. What is that? You should. Oh, here. Okay. In this packet. Okay. In that packet. All right. I got you. And of course, I know we're looking at 06. That's what these numbers – you said 10 years in your letter, but I think you meant fiscal year there because that's what these numbers represent. But anyway, the difference between your total revenue collected and your total expenditures, it looks like year to date you are operating at a deficit of $205,000. Okay. $205,000. Is that correct? Well, I – Well, I mean, that's what the numbers say. I assume that's correct because every year we have to generate a lot of money to stay afloat. Sure, sure. And I'm not questioning that. But with the 200 – and these are 06 numbers from the – looks like from the auditors. Yes, sir. And audited, but still. But it looks like in trying to understand, you know, if the government approved or council approved $250,000 more, then we need to reconcile what the difference between what you were given and what you're needing. I understand. Easy. We moved from our building on Short Street and Upper to a new location at 110 West Vine. Our rent went up $100,000 for your portion. The state has the same path. So I made that request that we need an increase in our rent to make us even so we can float. That was $100,000. The council – or the mayor gave me that in initial meetings. And that's all he gave me. I was asking for $1.8 million or whatever. He gave me $100,000. That's part of it. I came back to you all on the last day that was allowed, and I made the request. And you all gave me a salary for Richard Vemont to be the civil attorney. And he was being paid out of our private funds that you weren't paying for. And a new lawyer at $33,000. So that's a total of $150,000. $250,000. So now the requests are in addition to what you were funded. And I know one of the things was the $85,000. Yes, sir. And then you're looking to add two new employees, a paralegal slash secretary, Spanish-speaking. Yes, sir. So that's $50,000 because of $25,000. So really what you're needing now is your request. And I'm trying to understand. Is your request now the $85,000 plus the $50,000 for two additional employees? Yes, sir. And maybe some office funds for office supplies? Well, I don't think we need office supplies. I mean, yeah. So it's $85,000 plus $50,000. So about $135,000 is what your request is for right now. Plus the benefits that that would attach to those salaries. Yes, sir. That's my first two issues there. Yes, sir. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I'm looking on the same page, page 4. And on there, there's the Prosecutorial Advisory Council PAC funds of about $1 million in 06. Yes, sir. Am I in the right place? And as I understand it, that's your state money to pay strictly for lawyer salaries for your state-level prosecutions. Yes, sir. And they don't give you any appreciable, any sizable amount for your office expenses either, right? $3,000. $3,000. Okay. Next question I have is how many attorneys does that $1 million fund? I think 16. We have, I can tell you exactly. We've got, Richard Beaumont is not under PAC. Okay? He's a lawyer with us, so I count him as one of our lawyers. Round numbers is fine. I think it's 17 total. 17 or so? Yes, sir. You're proving my point. You must be paying them both. Because if you do professional salaries, a loaded salary for just about anything, lawyer, engineer, anything, is a good $100,000 anyway. So that would be 10, best case. If you're doing 17, that means you're paying them not near enough. Well, I mean, I can start them at $33,000, which is ridiculous, but I started three. We're in violent agreement, as we used to say in my previous career. Okay. The point I'm trying to get to here is how in the world can the state only fund us $1 million a year? I don't want to take the light away that we have our own responsibilities as a local government. I agree to that and so forth. But I'm seeing another problem here in that you're only getting $1 million from the state. What can we as a council do to help you improve that picture? Well, I think I have the answer to that. I would love for each one of you to get to know what we do so that when our PAC budget comes up, you can tell them what we're doing for you. I mean, I can go, and I did it last year, and, I mean, we are finally going to get a raise, I think, in January, a 2% bump, you know, for these guys. I think we're looked on, generally speaking, like a tennis team at the university or a minor sport. And there's so much money to go around in the state, and I'm not bemoaning the fact that they aren't fair. I mean, I think they're fair to us. But, yes, salaries need to go up. In the same token, if we can make this office, and this is what I want to do, and I told you all this before, if I can make this office a legitimate stepping stone to another job, then those young lawyers will come in and stay with me for two or three years and go. And I can still do it that way. I don't want to have 17 lawyers making $80,000 because when they're 55 and 60 years old, they're going to be tired, generally speaking. And I don't want that. I don't want that. I'd rather have the young guys and energetic people there. So I could do a whole lot better if they were 40,000, you know, but they're not. So we're doing what we've got. And we've got three brand-new ones on, and they're really good students, top-notch kids. Well, where I was getting to is that, yes, we as a government owe our own portion of this, funding this service. And what we're talking about today is just getting you to a basic level of being able to provide those services. We haven't even discussed paying a fair and reasonable salary to these attorneys. We haven't discussed raises, anything. And in that context, that brings the state back in with us. So I want us to remember the state has to share this problem as well. One other question, Mr. Roberts. Do you set the salaries, or is that set by the state or something like that? I do. You have the ability to set the salaries? Yes, sir. So if somebody quits, you know, somebody that's been here a while, I'll take that guy's salary and divide it up generally or hire one new one at 33 and pay the rest of the other ones to get them up. So you don't rely on the state to continue with the 2%, maybe. So I've been able to do that this year. And, you know, I'm fledgling here. I've only done it one year or so. Right. But, yes, that's what I've done. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blevins. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Roberts, I guess where I see the real opportunity for you here is in the letter that you wrote to me that the council has or the committee has. After number three, the second to last paragraph, you say, on a lighter note, I know this office can save the urban county government a considerable amount of money that is currently being expended for legal fees to private law firms. And that's what I was asking the last time you were here to receive a proposal from you on, because I believe you're correct in that statement. And I think that that's the real opportunity to put more money into your budget, is to show us as a city, as a council, what you can save the city by doing our outside council for us. I know you can't do all of it, but the portion you can do. And then you get the revenue off of that, which will, in turn, provide revenue for you. So do you have any thoughts about, you know, or have you thought about since the last meeting, how much money you could save for us, maybe how much work you could take from our outside council? Yes, sir. Do you want this back? You can have it. Okay. Yes, sir, I have. I couldn't answer your question, because I don't know what the city pays. All right? I don't have access to that. You all can find out real quick. One phone call, and you can know exactly how much you're spending for legal fees for private attorneys. That's the question you all have got to know, and I don't. But I can tell you this. It isn't cheap. They're not doing it $55 an hour. I'd be amazed if they were. So you're probably paying $100 an hour or more or multiples of those fees to a private law firm, wherever they are. I mean, I was in one, and I did it. I represented the city in a case, or the coroner. So I know, and it's a good job. And I'm not trying to tell you to take money away from private law firms, but it ought to be looked at to see can other people be utilized. Sure. And all I know is it wouldn't cost you anything for us to do it. We've got three lawyers who could do it right now. I can try a case tomorrow on any case you've got. So if we start with some of them, just whatever the law department wants, if they want help, and I've offered it to them even before I took office, that we're available to help in litigation, take depositions, whatever they want, we can do it. I'll tell you where it might help the counsel in this committee start, is if you give us maybe some categories of law that wouldn't create conflicts or anything like that, that you think that you have the expertise to handle inside your office. Well, sure. I mean, obviously anything could be a conflict if there are parties involved that we're related to. But normally it would be a suit against the city, for which I don't have any conflict. If the city gets sued, a police officer gets sued, or some kind of a damaged suit is brought, then we would have the capability of defending that. Now, I might have prosecuted somebody involved in that, but, I mean, it's an individual basis. You'd have to look at it and say, well, is somebody related to this police officer or something? But that's what your city law department has to do anyway. Lawsuits against the city, litigation. I know nothing about corporate law or property or anything. You wouldn't want me. But trial work, yes, we can do. So jail suits, possibly. Any of the litigation issues that involve city liability, I think that we could probably help them. We don't have to take it over. I'm not trying to do that. I'm just trying to assist. Thank you very much. What I would ask, then, is that the committee put together a request for the administration to look at what it is that we could outsource to Mr. Roberts as opposed to outside legal counsel. I don't know that Roberts' motion on the floor is taken care of. Then maybe you might want to make a motion. Thank you. Mr. Maloney, then Mr. Lane. Since Mr. Act Logan's here, maybe he can come down and answer what some of the questions that Mr. Myers has asked and the county attorney and see if there's some way we can partnership with some of these lawsuits that we have out there and why we can or why we can't. Or maybe you all might be able to work something out. Oh, excuse me. You snuck up on me. Yes, sir. We have, I believe it's about, I'd want to check this number for sure, but I'm going to say it's maybe 25 suits where we have outside counsel currently, and we haven't assigned any this year. So we have some that are ongoing, some of which you know about, that would be kind of difficult to start involving people in that have been going on for a while. But whether there would be a possibility for partnering, I'm not really sure. We're trying to handle more in-house, and we've been making a conscious effort to do that this year. But we do have some ongoing cases. Some of them are pretty far down the road trying to involve other people in them, and some of them are probably outside, you know, they're not your typical. I don't think you can say, well, any case that the city or the city is defending that any attorney could step in and do it. I don't know that it's quite that simple. But to the extent that there would be some way to partner somehow, I mean, we would certainly look at it. I wasn't aware of it. Nobody's ever contacted me about this issue, so I don't know. But we'll certainly take a look at it. Well, can you now that you know about it, I mean, I understand some of the lawsuits that we've had were ongoing. But some of them, well, we get sued just about every day. Something new comes up. Right. Can you sit down with them in case it does able to save us some funding and something that they could do? Well, how do you decide what case stays in-house and which one doesn't? And when the one that doesn't stay in, who do you, how do you all decide who gets those cases? Well, there are really two or three categories. One would be a specialized case, for instance, the defense of the EPA action. I don't think Mr. Roberts and his crew would want to, I don't know if they've got any experience in environmental matters. I suspect they don't. But it's very, very specialized. That would be an example of something that's very specialized where I think you need to get someone with that kind of expertise. We also have cases where the case is large enough to where it is very, very difficult to handle it in-house. The Berry case would be a good example of that that's been going on for a while. You all are familiar with that. There's plaintiffs in that case. The other instance is in a case where we actually have a conflict, and every now and again those will come up, where we've actually represented, say, an individual employee in a matter where we're defending it, and then they would turn around and be involved in another action back against the government. And in those instances where we have a conflict, we're not able to, the law department's not able to handle those cases. So those are really the three main categories where we would seek outside counsel. As I have indicated, we have not done that this year, everything that's come in that's new that we've handled in-house. But if you do get one, hopefully you can maybe try to work with them, see if they can do it. Sure. If the need arises, sure, we would be willing to consider that, absolutely. Now, I think the question was, one of the early questions was, what about the current cases we have, would we be able to do that? And I don't really know. We have to take a look at that. Thank you, Commissioner. Yes, sir. So we'll be able to respond to Mr. Myers' question without us making a formal motion? Yes, sir. And let me make sure I understand exactly what you want, Councilmember Myers. Excuse me, I am going to make a motion regardless of your response. We'll hold off on that then. Okay. Mr. Lane, then Mr. Gray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roberts had a couple of questions. I was just curious, you know, with the budgets you had and you're exceeding your budget for expenses, can you sort of explain how you got a little bit out of alignment on budget? Was some of the revenue that you anticipated hard to project? Or what threw you out of balance as far as your budget? I inherited it. I mean, I came in and, I mean, it's there. And so the way that's evolved is this. For years, the county attorney never came before you and asked for money to be supported. You had a budget and you could find it and off they go. And so what was happening, at least what I've observed, what was happening is that we are operating on property tax collections and receive a great deal of money on one year, like, I don't know, $700,000. And Margaret Cannison put that into bonds immediately. So that's been earning money. And then the next years after that, we didn't get much money from tax collections, but that was the money that was feeding, you know, making us float. So we dip into that $50,000 and pay what the expenses were. And that's carrying us right now. Then we have cold check collection, which basically pays for the employees who work there, pays their salaries. So that really isn't a moneymaker. Diversion is now a program that we are expanding where we are able to make a little money. We're paying two people to operate the program, but we then have some money left over that we can pay expenses on that is helping us. But those three things are the areas. And that's the only other income we got. I see. And the changes that you made, the adding of Mr. Vemont and moving the offices, that's where we provide the additional $250,000 to cover those estimated expenses for you. And rent. Right. Yes, sir. The $100,000 rent. Yes, sir. Okay. Well, I think I get a better understanding of what your dilemma is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Mr. Gray. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. I know we've got to get on, move on with our agenda. But I do want to say I think everybody's been impressed, Mr. Roberts, as you've taken on this role with the energy, enthusiasm, conviction that you've picked up with it. And I still think we need to, if we're going to be looking at this downstream in a couple of months, we need this analysis that looks back, that gives us a five-year picture, that illustrates the total budget for the office, the amount that LFUCG has provided. And that gives us then, that helps us understand the growth in terms of the total budget growth. And just to confirm a couple of things, Larry, it's my understanding that what is driving your increased budget is increased caseload. Is that correct? Well, yes. Caseload and demand on the staff? We couldn't possibly do it with the people that I had coming in. We've increased those positions to handle the budget, I mean, to handle the caseload. In addition, I mean, we're being killed on traffic cases, volume. It's 300 a day. It's a huge thing. And the police department is going to a new system of instead of writing the ticket, now it's on electronics. It's on their computer. And we know that it's going to increase dramatically, but that's 4.30 to 7 o'clock every day. Okay. Well, that's really why I was asking this question. If you've got a substantial backlog of work to be engaged and you're focusing on these issues where, as you've described it, you're really behind the curve and your staff needs to be focused on that, then why would you take on more work in an area that's new? Is that because you've got, and I'm talking about the city's backlog of work, is that because you've got extra capacity in that area? Because, I mean, that's the only way I can read it. If I've got a backlog that's staring at me, I'm not going to want to take on something brand new. Well, you may not, and I understand that mentality. But as a county attorney, one of my duties is to represent all the county officials in cases. We don't represent any county officials in cases except the coroner. Their choice has been to hire lawyers before, and I don't blame them. I mean, that was kind of a deal that's gone over the years. But I'm standing ready to do that if they need help in litigation or counseling. And so I'm here, and I like trying cases. I like being involved in litigation. So does V-Mont, and so does Brian Mattone. So we'll work over. I mean, we'll get more done. I think what we're interested in, and I'll stop here, but I think as a council, as this body, that our interest should be in funding areas where core skills and core competencies are at the highest level and where the need is the greatest. And that's why I'm concerned about picking up more business if you've already got a backlog of work that is troublesome and is problematic to get executed today. We're not having problems getting it done. I've never said that with regard to the prosecution of the cases. In fact, what I've said is if you don't fund us, we're going to still do it, and they're going to work extra to do that. So, Jim, I'm not trying to work an eight-hour day. In fact, I want our people to work more than that and get in the habit of being good lawyers so that they have value to them. And me, I don't have a time budget. So I got – I mean, all I'm saying is if we can help the city, we'd like to. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Gray. Mr. Myers, would you like to speak again? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't need to speak on this motion. Okay. Okay. I think everyone who wants to has had a chance to speak on the motion. One comment I would have is that the council has been frustrated in the past by the somewhat dilatory prosecution of things like code enforcement, speed, and other traffic violations, and we applaud you for stepping up the pace on that, and that would be welcomed. Are there any other comment on the motion? The motion is that the county attorney's request for additional funding for this fiscal year be placed on the list to be considered at the time of the audit report, which we would expect at the end of next month, hopefully. All those in favor signify by pushing this button. We're waiting. Oh, there it is. Let's see. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? I don't see how this thing's working, Jeanette. We have a new system here that have electronic voting so that everyone in the world can know how everyone voted, and it's supposed to be instantaneous and transmitted through the electronic waves throughout the world, but we're still on our maiden voyage. Oh, there we go. It's very magical because it recorded all our votes without us ever touching the thing. And I guess everybody agrees. Does everybody agree with what the ‑‑? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. I will get you that report, those thoughts. Okay, yeah. We need to collect some more information before, as Mr. Gray has intimated before, we consider this again. And it will remain on our docket here at the Budget and Finance Committee. I'll get it to you very soon. Thank you. Mr. Myers has another question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarity, what I'd like you to do is to review your mission statement for your office and then look at the areas of expertise that you have in your office and then come back to us and give us a list of types of cases that you feel competent as an office to handle for us. In civil litigation, you talk about? Yes. Okay, okay. And then from that, I'm going to make a motion, once we have that information, that this committee put together a policy for the full council to look at with respect to when we outsource and where we outsource. Okay. I'll do that. Thank you. I'll get it to you next week, the whole thing. Was it just by sending you a letter, it goes, I guess, to your box somewhere? Is that how everybody gets it? Just like the voting. Yeah? Okay. I'll get all that to you. If you send it to me as chairman of the committee, I'll be sure to disseminate it to all parties who are appropriate. Okay. I'll be glad to do that. Sure. Great. Thanks. And were you going to make the motion today or later? No, I'm going to wait until we get his report back, and I'll make the motion based on what's in there. Okay. Thank you. The second item on our docket is a conversation with Commissioner Cole concerning some of the items that the committee collected regarding preparation of our budget and the questions that arose from the last budget preparation. Commissioner Cole? We haven't made nearly as much progress on this list as I had hoped. I guess I just have to say up front this is one of those times that I probably over-promise and under-deliver. Most of our staff is so heads down now trying to get the year closed, and the budget folks are still trying to put together the document that you all passed in June to try to get that out. And quite frankly, we're working on some processes that are taking longer than normal because we're trying to set the stage for long-term change rather than jumping in and doing things quickly just to get it done. So particularly in the Department of Accounting, we're dotting I's and crossing T's so that when we come to this process again next year, that we don't encounter some of the same hurdles that we have encountered this year. So for that, I apologize. However, we have made some progress, and I'll go over that with you. I am, in fact, meeting later today. The first one you speak of here, or the first one on the list, is line item detail. I'm meeting with the folks from Metaformers, the consultant that we have on board that's helping us with the implementation of the budget module. I'm meeting with them later today to talk about how we get that information to you in a way that makes sense to you and isn't burdensome to us. With that, I have to say we're still working on that one. We recognize, I think we know what you want. It's a matter of making sure that it's in the system appropriately. Personnel lapse is a decision I think you all are just going to have to make. As we get closer to the new budget process, we will bring to you, before we send out forms and that kind of thing, those things go out to departments. We'll be running those by this committee beforehand, and we can then take a look at whether we want to consider using the personnel lapse situation the way that we've used it to this point, or whether we would like to go in a different direction. I talked to you briefly the last time I think about the way these kinds of things are handled in the state budget. I mean, that would be my recommendation. I still have my intern working this issue on what people do in other situations. I have to say that we're finding that most places budget the net of gross costs minus whatever you think attrition and everything else is going to be. So that's a decision for you. The contingency fund, I'm not quite sure how much more you really want me to do on this issue. I think Council Member Lane has been kind of carrying the water on that particular issue. I do sense, though, that we actually are talking about almost two different kinds of contingencies, one being what you have in place right now as a rainy day fund, and the other perhaps being some kind of flexibility within the money that you appropriate to have money to fall back on, rather than perhaps the, and I don't, we've referred to it as Christmas in November, and that's, you know, that's not very techno-speak here, but that's what we've referred to this in the past of finding out how much money is available and then making provisions to spend it that maybe we do that within the budget process, that there's some kind of contingency and that we know what your priorities are for that contingency spending. Again, it's something that we would have to enact as we go forward with the next budget and not deal with particularly in this one. Projection data, this is something that we will be working through the Lexington 2015 group with, and again, that's one of those other places that the mayor is actually still waiting for the list that I'm compiling for him, for him to make appointments. I apologize on that one, and I will get those things to him this weekend. We'll get moving there. Spending plan is much like we just discussed in the contingency. On the next page, capital planning, we have had some folks in Frankfurt review the process that my intern has put together on a capital improvement planning process. We've been working with the management partners folks that are on board doing the management audit. We're ready to finalize the forms and the instructions that we'll be using for that process. We'll be moving forward with capital improvement planning very shortly. Deferred projects, we actually have sent, we gave you the form at one point for 2007 projects and how those have been implemented. We will be reporting capital projects to you on a quarterly basis. So I think that's actually already in place. CAFR alignment, I have to say at this point that I just can't make any promises about the CAFR for this year. We are without, we've been without a director of accounting, and that responsibility has been solely with the director of accounting in the past. I don't have people on board that are experienced to do that. We're doing some contract work with our independent auditor to get ready to put the CAFR together. It probably is not going to be ready in a timely manner, and for that I apologize, but I just don't have the bodies to get it done. But again, I think maybe what we're looking at here is not so much really what's in the CAFR, but how we report to you overall and what kind of reporting mechanism we keep in place for a month-to-month update to the council and a reference back to where we were and where we are. Again, I'm meeting with the Metaformer's folks later today on the reporting issue as a whole. Monthly review, we do intend to close the months by the 10th of the following month. The problem for us right now is you can't close July until you've closed June, and we haven't closed the fiscal year. Metaformer's is on site to help us do that yesterday, today, and tomorrow. We intend to be closed on Wednesday. We discuss this daily with our contract auditors, and we've actually involved Bruce Salih some in our discussions about how to move forward on this. As soon as we will be getting back on track, hopefully by your October meeting, we'll be on track to report to you on a monthly basis. And some of the things that we're doing this year will much improve the process for us next year, and all I can say to you is that we will not be this far behind this time next year. We're going to do something different, even if it means that we have to contract with some additional people or something like that. This is not acceptable to me or to you, and I understand that. Outside agency operations, I think we talked at length about that this morning, the planning meeting and the outside agency unspent funds. Again, all of that, I think, will probably come through that committee, and the partner agency increases all of that. County attorneys, you all just discussed. Infill redevelopment, there's another significant process around infill redevelopment. A number of committees working, and I think, Dr. Stevens, you're probably, I think you're a part of that bigger group, and they're now working in three subcommittees. I visited with those folks this morning and will be attending as many of those meetings as I can so that we can get a handle on what their financial needs are going to be in terms of the recommendations that they'll be bringing forward to the council. The FY07 fund balance, well, if we haven't closed, we don't really have a number, but we have been running some trials along the way. Again, I hope to have a number that's fairly solid for you by next week. We'll continue to say I think we've budgeted very closely, maybe a lot tighter than has been done in the past. One of the things that we didn't take into account as we were making projections about what the fund balance would be, at the end of the year there was kind of this last minute thing that had to happen from the prior year. The transfer still hadn't been made for the rainy day fund. So that was a couple million dollars that went into the rainy day fund that had to be booked at the very end of June. So what I'm saying right now is I think it looks really tight. I think we are going to make the money that we budgeted as carried forward, but I don't think there's going to be a lot left over. But I will communicate that to you just as soon as we are comfortable with a number. Yes, sir? We should have had the county attorney stay for your report. I wanted to jump in and say I didn't want to make any money, but I didn't think you wanted me to do that. The retirement impact, I think we talked about that actually at the last meeting. And department and projects reporting, that was something that we deferred, I think, that discussion until we get the report from management partners. And the police and firefighters pension planning, you had at the last work session or one before you had the actuarial present that to you. We continue to work on how to deal with that problem, and we'll be bringing something to you in the next month or so. We're trying to talk to everybody we can talk to about what the options are in that regard. Over the long haul, how much money are those options going to cost us, and how do we deal with that? So those are all things, that one in particular, that's just going to take us some time to pull all the information together to get it to you. I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you. Mr. Lane. Good afternoon, Commissioner. How are you? Good morning. Your report prompts me to ask just a couple of questions here. Can you tell me how many accounting positions you currently have open at this time? I don't have any. Well, I have the director of accounting open. That position has been hired and will be on board October 1. Okay, so you're going to be fully staffed pretty soon? Yes, sir. That's good. Let me point out, though, what I have been saying to my accounting staff, because I have numerous people that are at the 80-hour max on comp time, and a number of people that have lost vacation time because they can't use it. What we can't get our arms around right now is how much effort is everything going to take once we're running clean and stars, and what's happening for them right now is that we are still cleaning up, running in production for months on end, and creating problems as we're running. So while I'm going to be fully staffed, I'm not willing to say yet that that's the right level of staffing for that division. So I may be coming back to you, assuming the mayor agrees. Well, that was going to be my second question is how the STARS accounting system is coming along. I haven't seen a report, I don't believe published, with accounting for this fiscal year. And, of course, I know you're still working on the year end. We're about 90 days into this fiscal year. So how is that? Can you give us a little overview on exactly how that's going? From every indication, I'm kind of watching things on a daily basis. Bill O'Mara is watching revenue. I'm watching the expenditures. You know, we're still running an interface between payroll and STARS, so we still run payroll on the mainframe, and then we have to post those entries. Those entries have not been posted beginning July 1, because the same people who do those postings are the people who are trying to get 07 closed. So while we know how much every payroll is and we're keeping track, we have not run any STARS reports in the current fiscal year for that reason, because payroll has not been posted to the system. I basically said to our folks on Friday that this is it. We're drawing the line in the sand this week. We're closing, and it may not be pretty, and we may have to deal with some things with our auditors. I hope not. But we can't continue to plug away at this and get further and further into 08. We're already basically almost three months behind now in 08. It's just not acceptable, and at some point you have to just draw the line in the sand and say, we've cleaned all we can clean and we're going to drive on. Have your trial year-end closing statements, have they been significantly out of balance, or are they pretty close? It depends on what you call significant. A couple million among friends? When we left here on Friday afternoon, we were under a million. Now, what I can say is our cash in the bank and what we know to reconcile against, the cash in the bank is correct. The problem is what was put into the system. And because so many of those entries were one-sided early on, we're still trying to correct some of those. But, again, the Metaformers people were very hopeful yesterday that we were going to be able to get much closer than we are right now. And, again, our auditors are well aware of what we're doing and the changes that we're making in the system and the cleanup that we're doing. And, I mean, they're nervous because now they're behind because we were supposed to allow them to begin work the first week in September, and, of course, they're still not working. Do you feel that the council needs to provide any additional funding to help you through this period and maybe bring some other experts in? Actually, I already have two temps that we brought in that have PeopleSoft experience and are accounting types. There comes a point, I'm sure you understand, when you can get to the point that you have too many hands. And I really think with what we have available to us right now, we're going to be able to do this. It's just not happening as timely as we would like for it to. And it says nothing about the people that are doing the work. They're working diligently. They have the expertise to do what they're doing. It's just overwhelming. Okay. Just the last thought I have is on the long-range budget projections going out for five years, just speaking for myself, not for this committee, I think that is one of our top priorities because we need to see how much, if we're in and out of balance, we have structural problems with the long-term revenues and expenses. So as soon as you get these problems cleaned up, I hope you make that a priority. I can assure you it's a priority for me, too. All right. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Mrs. Groten? Thank you, Dr. Chair. Commissioner, thank you very much. I have a question, and then I wanted to just clarify something you just said. You haven't made any payroll entries. In STARS. In STARS since the fiscal year began. Right. Okay. So that's just payroll. Just payroll. Okay. And, again, we know how much it is. Right. Right. It's just the technical part of posting it hasn't happened. My question is on number 16, the retirement impact and the anticipated increase in retirements. And can you flesh out a little bit what you expect from management partners? What sort of – I mean, I know you can't know what their recommendation is, but you said that you would be looking to them to make some kind of a recommendation on the retirement issue. If I did, I'm sorry, I misspoke. Or I'm not – I mean – Okay. So what – okay, then go back to the retirement issue. The retirement – okay, what I thought I said there was we've already prepared the information about who's eligible and has shared that with council staff and what that impact might be. Okay. What we need to do as we move into the 09 budget is make a decision about how much we're going to set aside to deal with that issue. Because for urban county government, there are really two issues there. One is the issue of the payouts for vacation and holiday. And that might be unusually high for any given fiscal year. And the other is the loss of expertise. Generally, those people that are ready to retire are the ones with the most knowledge about what's been going on, and you need to be making plans about how to deal with that transfer of knowledge and getting people up to speed. So we're well aware of the issue. We've run the dollars, so it's a plan that needs to be put forward about how we deal with this. Okay. But I think it's something that the administration will bring along to you with the budget. Okay. The 09 budget. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Barton. Mr. Gray. Actually, Commissioner Coe, I guess my comment or question or encouragement probably doesn't go to you as much as it does to, I don't know, Joe, are you boss? Are you direct line, Mr. Joe? This guy's number 17, which is my passion about the metrics, and I know it is yours as well. Just inquiring as to whether perhaps maybe you all are getting any further along on coming to some suggestions as to whether ICMA's model may be the benchmark for us, and we might be able to start picking some of that up and picking some of them off. We had, while you're on the way up, our council administrator did a little bit more digging on this, and Rebecca found out that I believe Charlie's been a member of ICMA and maybe someone else has been as well. So there's been some exposure to ICMA in the previous administrations. That is correct. Charlie is a member and is working on his certification, city management certification. So he is knowledgeable. We had a discussion just last week with the management partners folks, with Jerry, about the things that we can begin to put in place. We don't have to wait until the work is completed, but things that we can start putting in place. One of the things that we talked about was those things that we have enough data and information about. What's been interesting is getting a baseline, if you understand what I'm saying. It's going to take them a little while longer, and they're just about a third of the way into the process here. It's going to take them a little while longer to bring some recommendations to us relative to, let me say, a more thorough recommendation. But yes, we agree with you. One of the things that we've been having a conversation with Councilman Myers and his committee about performance expectations and measurements for outside agencies. We've been working our way through that process, trying to come to an understanding about what the expectations should be and what's measurable and appropriate. That's been a good discussion, by the way. Yes, sir, it is on our radar screen, and it is something that we want to roll out as much as we can when we can. Now, whether that vehicle is the appropriate one to employ, they are certainly very familiar with it, Jerry and his team. They'll make a recommendation to us. Maybe, Joe, I guess the context for this, to some extent, is in, for example, committee meeting this morning of sanitary sewers. Yes, sir. Some of the questions, in my mind at least, from a management point of view, if we dig into some of the root causes of some of the issues, I suspect that some of the instruments that ICMA has as a general model, that they've been across many jurisdictions, many cities, some of the answers to some of the questions would emerge through the instruments, through the metrics and measures that ICMA has already, you know, done the exhaustive reviews in order to identify. And so that's what I'm getting, is that if they already, if they have the appropriate metrics for hundreds of jurisdictions, hundreds of other cities have been identified, and we know that other cities have sewage systems, and if they can be that, if it represents low-hanging fruit for us to go ahead and pick off, that's really what I'm anxious about. And if you are looking at that deliberately, intentionally right now, I think you would certainly appreciate it, and I think it can be informing as we go forward and as soon as possible. We are, and there's no desire to reinvent the wheel here. If there's something in place that we can use, and that's certainly a place where we started. Thank you. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. Mr. Maloney. I have the same question that Mr. Gray was on there, and I guess about three months ago, you brought this up in a committee as a whole on some of your, what you just, what I think you all have been talking about. We tabled that, and I was wondering, I thought they were going to look at your idea and compare the other ones. When is that, do you know when they were going to bring that back up for discussion that you brought when your intern came out and did a presentation on that? I'll try to respond to that, not to speak for the Vice Mayor, but what we had suggested was since we were doing the performance audit, the management audit, and that to accomplish that or begin that process would give us a better understanding as to what measurements we might need and could put in place. I absolutely agree that this vehicle is a logical vehicle for consideration, but again, having a little difficulty getting the baseline information to start with and the mechanisms being in place to capture that information, part of the answer to the question is as our technology capacity ramps up and we have the ability to track things. The reference earlier by the county attorney relative to public safety employees being able to use their mobile data terminals to enter citations and information, that will be much easier to capture and track once that's available. What we had asked was whether it's going to start on the management audit, get into that process, get as far as we need to, and then have that discussion. One thing I remember now from the conversation with Jerry Newfarmer, he mentioned when I brought up ICMA, he mentioned that when he was city manager of Cincinnati, actually apparently he was a co-founder of ICMA, so he has lots of familiarity with it and maybe you all can just give us an idea as to whether or not you think that model is going to be reasonable to adopt or to join, whatever, and then there may be some of our departments who would be willing to start adoption. Yes, sir. Of those creating their instrument panels that would be common to the template of ICMAs. Yes, sir. Okay. I will do that. Thank you, sir. Thanks. Mr. Senior Advisor, right? What is the appropriate salutation? Thank you, sir. Thank you, John. Any other items about Item 2? If not, we'll go to Item 3, and I think perhaps the Commissioner told us that next week we can expect preliminary information about 07, and that by this time next month we should have the data from June, July, and September. July. Right. I will say, at least on the revenue side, we are ahead of last year. We're watching that at the end of every week, so we're watching the numbers very closely. They're just not in a reporting format yet. Okay. Are there any further questions, items for the Committee to consider? If not, a motion is in order to adjourn. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you.