# Council Budget & Finance Committee - March 22, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 22, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1928 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1928?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-03-22 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 18,429 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Budget & Finance Committee met on March 22, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with the Chair presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the meeting, taking three votes and hearing four public comments. The committee approved the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and reviewed the Monthly Budget Report (1-9) on an informational basis. The committee also approved discussion of Council Links (items 10, 12-14) and approved the FY 12 Budget Discussion Timeline. One item referred to the committee (item 15) was deferred for later consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 22, 2011: * Ellinger * Lane * Gorton * Kay * Farmer * Myers * Beard * Lawless * Blues * Driscoll * Maloney * Stinnett * Schoeniger * Martin * George No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion on Reorganization Plan Presentation** A motion was made by Myers and seconded by Martin to have the mayor or CAO present the reorganization plan to the council for discussion and approval [timestamp: 01:40:27]. This motion was withdrawn and did not proceed to a vote. **Motion on Council Links** A motion was made by Kay and seconded by Stinnett to use the proposed council links as presented, based on the current administrative reorganization [timestamp: 01:54:38]. The motion passed by voice vote. **Motion on Council Budget Schedule** A motion was made by Schoeniger and seconded by Stinnett to accept the proposed full council budget schedule with adjustments for bond workshop and quarterly council meeting [timestamp: 02:00:35]. The motion passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included presentations of two financial reports: * **Monthly Budget Report for February 2011** — A presentation of the monthly budget report covering February 2011 was provided to the body. * **2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Audit Findings** — A presentation of the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and related audit findings was presented. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council regarding concerns about the relationship between the proposed reorganization and the current budget process. **Gorton** [timestamp: 01:03:29] questioned whether the current council links accurately reflect the actual administrative structure. He emphasized the need for a formal, charter-compliant reorganization process to be completed before the budget is finalized. **Lane** [timestamp: 01:08:56] expressed concern that the budget process is being hindered by an unapproved reorganization. He urged the administration to present the restructure proposal before the budget is finalized. **Stinnett** [timestamp: 01:50:51] highlighted a significant administrative risk: if the reorganization is not approved in advance, the budget may need to be completely redone, creating what he characterized as an administrative nightmare. **Kay** [timestamp: 01:54:38] offered a different perspective, suggesting the council continue with the current council links as proposed in the budget. He noted that assuming most of the reorganization will carry forward would help avoid administrative disruption. The public comment period reflected a central tension in the meeting: whether to proceed with budgeting based on the current structure while reorganization remains pending, or to delay the budget process until the reorganization is formally approved and finalized. ## Contested Items **Council Links and Administrative Reorganization** A procedural dispute arose regarding whether the current council links should reflect an informal reorganization that the administration had implemented but had not yet received formal council approval. Committee members disagreed on whether to adopt the proposed links ahead of an official charter-compliant reorganization process. The committee ultimately agreed to use the proposed links, but members emphasized the importance of completing a formal reorganization process that would comply with charter requirements. **Budget Timing and Reorganization** Council members were divided on whether to delay the budget process to allow for a formal reorganization vote. Some members argued that proceeding with budget approval before completing the reorganization would create an administrative nightmare if changes needed to be made afterward. This split vote reflected concerns about the sequencing of these two significant processes and their potential interdependencies. ## 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) The committee reviewed the 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), which received a clean audit opinion (unqualified). [timestamp: 00:00:00] **Presentation and Key Findings** The external auditor, Mountjoy Chilton Medley, reported on the audit results. The report identified two material weaknesses related to accounting practices: - Prior period adjustments for compensated absences - Pension liabilities Both material weaknesses were corrected during the audit process. **Delays and Staffing Issues** The committee noted that the CAFR was delayed due to leadership transitions and a missing Director of Accounting position. Despite these challenges, the audit was completed and the report received a clean opinion. **Outstanding Items** The following items remain pending: - Single audit report - Management letter **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Driscoll, Phyllis Cooper, and Brad Smith. **Outcome** The 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report was approved by the committee. ## Monthly Budget Report (1-9) [timestamp: 00:38:43] The committee reviewed the February 2011 revenue and expenditure data during this presentation. Key speakers included Driscoll, Stinnett, and Lawless. **Revenue Performance** Employee withholdings exceeded budget expectations, running 2.4% above the projected figures. However, other revenue streams underperformed. Net profits and franchise fees both came in behind budget during the reporting period. **Expenditure Analysis** On the expense side, the committee noted personnel savings resulting from hiring freezes and staff vacancies. These reductions helped offset some budget pressures in the personnel category. **Notable Variance** A significant $1 million variance was identified and attributed to a library payment, which accounted for a substantial portion of the month's budget deviation. **Committee Action** The committee requested more detailed financial breakdowns for internal review, indicating a desire for deeper analysis of the budget performance beyond the summary figures presented. This outcome was informational in nature, with the presentation serving to update the committee on the month's financial status and establish a foundation for further detailed examination. ## Council Links Discussion (10,12-14) [timestamp: 01:00:40] The committee discussed the alignment of council links with the current administrative reorganization. Key speakers in this discussion included Gorton, Lane, Maloney, Myers, and Kay. **Concerns Raised** During the debate, concerns were raised that the current structure had not been formally approved by the council and could potentially conflict with the charter. **Motion and Outcome** A motion to use the proposed links as-is was brought forward and passed. The committee approved this approach to proceed with the proposed council links structure. **Next Steps** The committee established a plan to hold a special meeting on April 12 to review the reorganization before the budget presentation. This scheduled meeting would allow for further examination of the administrative reorganization prior to budget discussions. ## FY 12 Budget Discussion Timeline [timestamp: 01:55:09] The committee discussed the proposed budget schedule for fiscal year 2012. Key speakers in this discussion included Schoeniger, Stinnett, and Gorton. The discussion centered on establishing a timeline for budget-related activities, with particular attention to scheduling a bond workshop. The committee identified the need to hold a bond workshop in April and determined that April 28 would be the appropriate date for this event. In addition to the bond workshop scheduling, the committee addressed adjustments to the quarterly council meeting time as part of the overall budget discussion timeline. A motion to accept the proposed schedule was brought before the committee and passed. With this approval, the bond workshop was officially scheduled for April 28. ## Items Referred to Committee (15) [timestamp: 01:35:04] The committee discussed the administration's reorganization plan and the requirement for formal presentation to the council. Key speakers included Maloney, Driscoll, and Myers. The committee emphasized that the administration must formally present its reorganization plan to the council as required by charter. This formal presentation was identified as a necessary step in the review process. To accommodate this requirement and allow adequate time for review, the committee agreed to schedule a special meeting for April 12. This meeting will be dedicated to reviewing the reorganization plan before the budget is presented to the council. **Outcome:** The item was deferred, with the understanding that the reorganization plan review would proceed through the scheduled special meeting on April 12. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — withdrawn: Motion to have the mayor or CAO present the reorganization plan to the council for discussion and approval - **Motion** — passed: Motion to use the proposed council links as presented, based on the current administrative reorganization - **Motion** — passed: Motion to accept the proposed full council budget schedule with adjustments for bond workshop and quarterly council meeting --- ## Full transcript Budget Finance Committee. Our first item on agenda is the 2010 Comprehension of the Annual Financial Report. And Commissioner, I think you'll start if you would please. Thank you. just do just a short presentation on a couple of different slides of things that we felt were important, as well as our outside auditor has also put together a presentation, so we will hand that to you as well. And Phyllis, if you'll go ahead and hand both out, if we can. Okay, we're making copies of the other one. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. the comprehensive annual financial report for fiscal year 2010 was not complete when I arrived in January. So one of the first tasks, obviously, was to get the annual financial report complete. And I can give you a little history of that if you prefer. I can answer questions about that as we move through the presentation. But just in terms of summary, is that? Okay. Gotcha. I did want to make some introductions to you today of some of the major stakeholders in this process as we have completed the CAFR for fiscal year 2010. Obviously, the Division of Accounting falls under my responsibilities as commissioner, and our director of accounting, Phyllis Cooper, is here today and will participate in this presentation. as well as, again, a little bit of the history. The previous director of accounting, as I understand it, left last August. The position was empty during much of the compilation of this CAFR. So in order to fill that gap, the administration at the time hired outside consultants of Dean, Dorton, Allen and Ford. They were hired in September of 2010, again, to move this process along. There are folks who are scheduled to be here today from Dean Dorton, the Associate Director of Assurance Services, Simon Keemer, and the Supervisor of Assurance Services, Travis Thomas, are scheduled to be here. And then we hired external auditors to review the CAFR once it was complete, and we hired Mountjoy Chilton Medley, and the engagement partner is Mr. Brad Smith, who, again, is going to be presenting to you later, as well as the audit manager, Drew Ulmer. Just some basics as we go through, because there may be some questions about the document you have and what you can anticipate and expect in the future. First of all, again, you receive a copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. What is still to be complete is our other audit that we move through, which is the single audit report, commonly referred to as the A-133, which is the schedule of federal awards to this government. It is due out. Typically, the time frame for that is by the end of March, and we are on schedule to complete that single audit report. And then as we complete the single audit report and the CAFR, we receive a management letter, which is shared with governance, which would be you. That management letter, however, is still in draft form. The initial draft was submitted to us, and we are putting together our responses to that management report. Obviously, once that draft is final, it will be submitted to you as a body. I think one of the most important questions most folks have is when you look at the annual audit, did we get a clean audit? In audit language, that's called an unqualified opinion. And although the auditor will speak to that in their presentation, I did want to say right up front that this audit was a clean audit. We did get an unqualified opinion, which basically said to the public and to you and to the mayor as the governance of this government that the financial statements were presented fairly in all material respects, the financial position of the government. So I think that is a key factor. And then I'm going to have Phyllis Cooper, again, our auditing director, speak to some of the basic financial information, and then we will have a presentation by our outside auditor. Thank you. First, I wanted to define some of the terms I'll be using today. starting with government-wide. And what I mean by that is all of the funds that are in the financial statements for LFUCG. And we break the financial statement down into two separate activities, governmental activities, which are the governmental funds that include general urban service, federal and state grants, 2010 bond projects, and other governmental funds. And those other governmental funds are prior year bond funds. And the other activity is business-type activities, and those operate similar to a business entity, and they charge fees for services. Those funds include sewer, public facilities corp, public parking corp, landfill, and other enterprise funds. And so going over some of the highlights, the governmental funds combined ending fund balances was $120.34 million, which reflects an increase of $26.91 million over FY09. And that's primarily due to an increase in the fund balance of new and existing capital projects of $30.13 million. We break down fund balance into two pieces. The 120.34 is broken into reserved and unreserved. The reserved amount is $33.56 million, and it breaks down into $32.1 million for encumbrances and $1.4 million for inventory and prepaid items. The $86.77 million makes up the unreserved fund balance, and that is also broken out into an undesignated and a designated amount. The designated includes $17.5 million, and the undesignated was $69.22 million. And the actual unreserved and undesignated part of fund balance for the governmental funds combined was $35.37 million. On a government-wide level broken out to those two activities I described earlier, governmental activities net assets were $889.44 million, which was a decrease of $45.15 million over the prior year, and that reflects an $18.64 million decrease in depreciable capital assets and an $87.09 million increase in long-term debt related to the issuance of bonds. Business-type activities net assets were $289.62 million, which is an increase of $3.27 million over the prior year and reflects an increase of $6.71 million in depreciable capital assets. Long-term debt, governmental activities debt increased by $87.09 million, as I mentioned earlier, and that was to finance bond projects. We also had $35.83 million to reduce the police and fire pension plan, unfunded pension liability. Business-type activities debt increased $29.67 million related to revenue bonds, which are to be utilized, along with other available funds, for the construction of major additions, betterment, and extensions to the sanitary sewer system. Did I miss one? There it is. Last but not least, the general fund, which is a part of the governmental activities, we use it to cover most of our operating expenditures, has a total fund balance of $31.52 million. And that is broken into the two separate pieces, reserved and unreserved. The reserve fund balance is $12.02 million, and the total unreserved is $19.5 million. The $19.5 million is broken into three pieces. One piece is the economic contingency designated of $14.47 million. We have another piece for the 27th payroll that will come around in the year 2017. That is $2.92 million. so the remaining unreserved, undesignated fund balance in the general fund is $2.11 million. And now I will turn it over to our external auditors, Mountjoy Chilton Medley and Brad Smith. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you. Drew Romer is going to pass out the handout that we'll go over with our slides. So I'll let him do that. Drew is the services manager on the engagement and is responsible for the daily oversight of the performance of our engagement. So I'll point you to the agenda. we're just going to hit the high points of our engagement, specifically in the context of what would be referred to as our required communication under the auditing standards. And we'll hit a few of the high points from our perspective as it relates to the CAFR itself, with the commissioner already stealing our thunder from the standpoint of telling you what our opinion says to the government. So if you flip over to the page where it starts with required communications, it just reaffirms to the committee what our responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards are. We plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about the financial statements and ensuring that they are free of material misstatement. ultimately the responsibility with the presentation of the financial statement rests with the government and the management of the government. We assess the risk of the financial statements may contain material misstatement, either intentionally or unintentionally. And then our audit includes examining, again, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosure in the financial statements, looking at the accounting principles used, either existing or new, significant estimates that are inherent within the preparation of any set of financial statements, and then evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. Ultimately, that leads to our opinion on the financial statements. It really is the one, two pages within the comprehensive annual financial statement report that is ours. it is on page 12 and 13 of your booklet. You'll see that it covers, it starts out by defining what is covered on the opinion. It is the government-wide financial statements and the respective components that Phyllis has broken down for you in her presentation. That second paragraph then gives you the basis by which we perform our audit in accordance with both accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and the government auditing standards. And then as the Commissioner has pointed out to you, our ultimate opinion on the financial statements as a whole is an unqualified opinion, meaning that is the highest level of assurance that we can provide on your set of financial statements. Two other things are captured within the opinion pages. One, you'll see a reference to a separate report. The Commissioner has touched on that. It's referred to as the single audit report. In the context of this opinion, it refers to the internal control and compliance and other matters report. That report itself is included within the context of the single audit report. Our engagement as it relates to internal controls is to document and consider internal controls over financial reporting for purposes of us to adjust our audit scope and our plan procedures, not ultimately to provide you an opinion on the effectiveness of the internal controls. As the Commissioner says, we have substantially completed the single audit. We've provided a draft to that. Within the context of that, there is a report of two control deficiencies which rise to the level of material weaknesses. You've seen that within the context of the CAFR to the extent you've had a chance to review the detail. They're broken out in Note 2, subsection D. There were two items that required prior period adjustments within the financial statements this year. By definition, based on the size of the adjustments, a prior period adjustment to your financial statements would rise to the level from a controlled efficiency standpoint to say it's a material weakness. The two items relate to, one, compensated absences, the accrual for that. During physical 2010, there was an adjustment to the system that was being used by the government, a conversion to a new payroll software. During the conversion process, it was noted that the new software was calculating a different balance and a higher balance than what had previously been calculated. Upon further research and testing, it was determined that amount had been historically understated, leading to the adjustment to your beginning balance of your net assets. The second item that required the adjustment related to the adoption of GASB 45 in the prior year related to the actuary estimates of benefit plans, and you'll see where the adjustment for that resulted in roughly $7 million to your net assets. Again, what the result of that was, within GASB 45, the standard allows you to engage an actuary on an every-other-year basis. The government had done that in the year of adoption. In 2009, there was not a detailed study done. There was a misapplication of that off-year of need for an actuarial study, and the fact that the recorded liability had not been adjusted properly in 2009. That has been adjusted now at the beginning of the period, and your 2010 did in fact reflect the results of an updated actuarial study for 2010. On a go-forward basis, you will only still get that study on an every-other-year basis, but management now has developed a process to estimate the liability in the year for which you do not have a detailed study, and then in the second year of the cycle, you will have a study and you will, in our terms, true the liability up to the actuarial study. Again, you will see that in your detailed single audit report, which is coming by the end of this month. And then the second part of that report does deal with compliance and other matters specifically related to your federal awards, and there was no instances of noncompliance to be reported in our draft report. So again, in the context of the CAFR, those two pages and the subsequent single audit report are our ultimate deliverable to the financial statements. Just a quick overview of what's included in a very voluminous document, 155 pages, just a quick breakdown. Phyllis has kind of walked you through sections one and three, kind of the introductory sections, which is contained in pages one through 11. I've hit the high points of our opinion, page 12 and 13. And then Phyllis has also hit the high points of management's discussions and analysis, which is the government's view and overview of the financial performance of the government during fiscal 2010. Our responsibility related to what we were referred to as the MD&A is to review that for consistency with the financial statements, and we found that to be consistent as we went through it. The basic financial statements, broken down by the government-wide financial statements, the individual respective funds, and then the combining in individual funds, along with the footnotes supporting those statements, are contained in the majority section of the document, pages 28 through pages 130. And then the very back section is additional supporting documentation, the statistical section that's prepared by the government in support of your basic financial statements. To carry on with certain communications that we're required to do to this committee as you're charged with governance of the financial reporting, there are certain communications that we provide to you annually, the first being independence. We would affirm our continued independence of the government, both under the AICPA rules, which is our standards, and then the government auditing standards, both of which are applicable to the audit engagement for the city. From an accounting policy standpoint, management is responsible for the selection and use of that. No new significant policies in physical 2010 except for the adoption of GASB 51, which was the recognition of certain intangibles to the financial statements. Again, not what we would team to be a significant impact to the financial statements. And then ultimately there's no transactions recorded within the context of the overall financial statements that lacked authoritative consensus or guidance for which management applied. As I mentioned early on, in the preparation of a set of financial statements, inherently there are key estimates that have to be made by management. in the preparation of those financial statements. In our opinion, the five listed are probably the most significant estimates contained within the financial statements on a government-wide basis, the allowance for uncollectible accounts, other post-employment benefits liability, the self-insurance claims liability, pension liabilities, and then the liability associated with landfill post-closure costs. Again, there's many other estimates inherent in your financial statements, But again, we would view those five as the most significantly impacting the financial statements overall. Very hard to read this in a slide format, so you do have this in front of you. Again, from a significant audit matters, the commissioner did mention it was an unusual year, obviously with the transition of your team that started back in August, going through a period of time where director of accounting position had not been filled. You did use outsourced assistance very effectively to continue to move the process forward. And then with the change of administration at the end of the year, that kind of split this engagement. So as we wrapped up the engagement and filed the report at the end of February. But there were no disagreements. We had full cooperation from management pre-December 31st and after December 31st, allowing for the effective completion of the engagement. We're not aware of any consultations of accounting matters except for, as the Commissioner pointed out early on, the engagement of Dean Dorton Allen and Ford to assist management with the compilation and preparation of the combined annual financial report. We believe the disclosures included in the financial statements are neutral, consistent, and clear, again, being consistent with the prior year. To the extent that there's adjustments that come arise out of our engagement, we're required to report those to this committee, again, being charged with governance. We did note three adjustments that were unrecorded adjustments that collectively with management were deemed to be insignificant in total to the overall financial statement. There were certain adjustments noted, again, none of significance, that ultimately we concurred with management for the recording of those adjustments. And then as part of our engagement, we do, on an annual basis, request representations from management. They're standard industry practice representations, basically incurring to us and inferring to us that they have fully cooperated and provided all the necessary information that we've requested in the context of our financial statement audit. And then from an engagement status, the Commissioner did point this out already, the single audit report is on schedule to be issued by the end of this month, and the management letter has been drafted. And as our standard course, we provide those draft management letter comments to the management to allow them to review those, one, for validation of factual basis of the comment, and then having the chance to formally respond to those comments for purposes of then providing to you as the body of governments one consolidated document that would have our recommendations for enhancing and improving the internal controls of the government and management's follow-up actions that are planned as it relates to those recommendations. With that, those are the formal remarks and the combined statements, and I would see if there's any questions that you might have. Thank you very much. We do have some questions. Vice Mayor Gorton, I have you first on the list. Thank you, Chair. Excuse me. I'll answer all those. We've been in meetings a long time today. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. I just have one question for you, please, and then I have a question for the commissioner. On pages 123 through 127, you've listed our non-major component units, And I know in your letter you said that you don't audit those entities. Other agencies do their audits. That's the transit authority, the library, the convention and visitors, downtown development authority, and the parking authority. And then so what is the numbers and the report in here? Is that a reflection from the other auditors? That's correct. As part of our engagement, we do receive directly from the auditors and those agencies their audit report. We review that for consistency with the government-wide presentation to ensure there's no questions that we would have. But ultimately, as we reference in our opinion, ultimately it's their opinion that's covering those financial statements, not ours. And so then do those opinions come back to our, where do they go? Both places. I think the government keeps a copy, but ultimately the engagement is with the agency itself directly. Okay. Okay. And then thank you very much. And then Commissioner Driscoll, I wanted to just ask a couple things. I know that it was a very unusual year. And with the transition between administrations, it made it doubly unusual. This is sort of a strange report because the CAFR in the front, of course, lists past administration and past council. And then the letter is from you and the current mayor. And the letter on page three. And so I wondered if there's a way to build in some sort of redundancy so that if a director of accounting is missing and there's an administrative change coming up, that we don't have to wait until three months before the end of our next fiscal year to get the CAFR. I mean, is there some sort of redundancies that could be built in, or do we have to have the director of accounting, and do we, do you see what my question is? I do, and I can only speak to what I understand the process was, and then I can definitely speak towards how I see the process moving forward. From the perspective of the gap that was realized when the Director of Accounting left us, the way I'm addressing that for future is that Phyllis, in working with her staff, that more there's some cross-training happening where all of the staff understand the pieces of putting together the annual financial report and that we'll be better situated, and hopefully we don't lose Phyllis, but in the event that there would be a change and she determined, you know, to leave or, you know, there was some change in that position, that we wouldn't find ourselves in a similar position. Again, I can't speak to how the different divisions worked prior to, other than knowledge that staff has shared with me since my time here, but definitely our goal is to have cross-training in place and that there is a better understanding, not only through accounting, but the divisions of finance and budget and how they work together because they were, for lack of a better term, sort of siloed before, and my goal was to make sure we all understood the implications of what we do or don't do. And in terms of timing, that gets you through a portion of the delay in the financial report being ready. But then after the change in administration, there was an OPEB actuarial study that had not been complete. Actually, that happened right before the transition. So that took some time. to complete. We received that information on January 28th. So we turned around all of that information within a month after that. So once I arrived, we didn't even have all the complete information in which to complete the CAFR. Again, that's just a situation not being critical of anyone. It's just a situation that we found ourselves. That's what I was wondering. It was kind of like a perfect storm that created this. And if you need me to speak to why I signed the letter, I can do that as well, because a lot of research went into the signature. I don't have a problem with that. It's just an unusual-looking report in that regard. It is. I just was wondering what you'd thought about for future so that we can get back on track. And it seems to me, and Paul might remember more than anybody, but I think we usually get our CAFR in November or December, correct? You have gotten it as early as November. Yes. It's generally December, January-ish. The normal time that a lot of municipalities is by December 31st you would have. Do you anticipate we might be back on track this year, the next one? That is the charge that I've asked Phyllis to complete. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I just think redundancy is good because you never know who might be out when. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Council Member Lane. Thank you. I have a question for Brad Smith, please. Could you tell us approximately the dollar value of the two material weaknesses that were identified in our audit? Yeah, if you'll flip to the page marked. Just one second, please. The compensated absence difference is $5 million. And, again, you'll see these spelled out within Note D. In my copy of the CAFRAD, it's page 64. It's got a printed version versus the final bound copy. So it's footnote D of subsection D of footnote 2. Labeled prior period adjustment. Yeah, page 64 is the, it should be in your copy. You'll see a breakdown in the second and third paragraph of the two individual items and the respective dollar amounts associated with them. Okay, and so that was $5 million for the compensated balances, liabilities, and? And on that one, it was really no way, in looking at the historical information, it was undeterminable of when that ultimately started. It was a systematic issue within the report itself that ultimately led to that. So that number presumably would have grown over a number of years. So in any one year, the difference would not have been, but that is a cumulative total at the beginning of this fiscal year, being June 30, 2010. And this irregularity is when we install new software and then we identify that some departments are paying the wrong compensation for our test. No, this is really for future compensated absences, the amount of liability that you're recording. Ultimately, the tests that historically have been done primarily have been an analytical-based test and then testing certain components of the report. So on an analytical basis, the trend of that liability was in line with other metrics within the government. But ultimately, the adjustment is to adjust upward the amount of future liability potential that you have for people that have earned that compensated time on a government-wide basis. All right. Thank you very much. Let me do just a quick follow-up on that. Do you see this creating any kind of future financial liability for the government, or is this pretty well cleaned up, this report? At the end of, at the beginning, actually, of 2010, and then clearly at the end, the report is properly reflecting, in our estimation, I think in management's as well, the liability to the government on a go-forward basis. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Sinnott. Thank you, Chair. First, I have a couple housekeeping questions for Commissioner Driscoll. So ideally, when would we like to have this product completed annually? Is it in December? Is that what we're trying to target? Yes, December 31st at the latest. Okay, so that's a normal. And the agencies that have to submit their budgets, are we getting cooperation from them, submitting them on time? Was there delays? And in the past, a couple of them were holding us up trying to get them finished. Do we still have the same problem? The component unit audits? Yeah, like the transit authorities and the airports and library. There was no issue this year. None. They all got it. Of course, I don't have any history, but they have indicated we didn't have a problem this year. Good, good. So normally we'd like to have this in December because obviously it's a good tool to use on preparing the budget. Of course, you'd like to have had this a little sooner. Then I also have a question on page 27, just a couple spots here that I want to clarify some of the information. On page 27, it has under next year's budget in regards to the expenses for the, as regards to the consent decree under the first little bullet point there, a commitment of $50.8 million for storm sewer projects. Is that combined both storm and sewer? Because under the storm side, it's only $30 million, and here it says $50.8. Does that include the sanitary? I will check for you, just because I ran from one meeting to another and I didn't bring all my work papers, but you guys, it's combined, I think. But if I can get that back to you, I will. Okay, because I just want to make sure people in the community aren't, we haven't committed to 50.8 million of storm sewer projects. Right. And, again, this is written at the time looking forward to the fiscal year 11 budget. But I will get that question. Okay, if you could double check what that number represents, that would be great. And then I guess on page 136, which to me is probably the most useful page in this whole document in terms of analyzing our history and looking forward to preparing this year's budget as Council works on it, it's a page I've always referred to quite often in working on the budgets. But it shows our general fund, the last 10 years. And, you know, for instance, if you look at public safety, in 2001 we spent $90 million. Last year we spent $183 million. It's doubled in 10 years. I mean, those are some good stats to look at on that page. My question is, at the bottom it says we have a negative change in fund balance from FY9 to FY10. I assume that change is what number, what was the fund balance? I don't see it listed on there. Is it just saying we had a negative, we have more expenses than we did revenue? How should one interpret that? It is, if you look at the expenditures versus the revenues, it is. So we overspent in FY10, basically? Yes. So where do we get that extra money? It comes out of what fund balance, the $4.3 million we had left over from 2009? Yes. That's how we got the $2.1 million now, whatever? I know I'm doing quick math. Well, yeah, because there are some other adjustments. Is there not a way to list the fund balance on that sheet so we can have reference to what the fund balance was each year? These tables are typically governed by an example set out by the standards, but I'm sure in the statistical section we could work on doing that, on adding that. Because when you say net change in phone balance, but it's not listed, it's hard to kind of put that number into perspective. It looks like we had a loss in government last year, but we weren't in the whole 1.6. That's correct. Okay. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. Any other questions from Council Members? I see none. Commissioner, is there anything else for the CAFR? No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. The next issue will be our monthly budget report. And, Commissioner, I think this is probably yours. It's juggling paper. Sorry. Okay, that's fine. And as I've done in the past, Mr. Chair, I'm just going to do the introductory remarks. And while we have the comparative unemployment rates and our other economic indicators, I'll just go through those very quickly because I thought I just might mention where we were in the process of both current year and the next year's budget for both the public's perspective and as well the benefit of those members that weren't in our budget meeting. So if you look at the first slide on the comparative unemployment rates, again, you will see the top line. The yellow line is the Kentucky unemployment rate. Green below that, tracking closely to Kentucky, is the U.S. rate, and then you have the red, which is the MSA for our area, and then Fayette County's is below. And you can see we were tracking downward and a little spike up when you look at the three-month moving average for unemployment rates. If you look at the next slide, how that translates into the actual percents, if you look at the top line, the Fayette County unemployment rate for January was 8.7%, which was the second lowest in Kentucky, and it compares to January of 10, unemployment rate of 8.5%. So again, following the diagram, you see that small spike up. unemployment in terms of numbers, 142,352 January of this year compared to January of 10 of 138.1. Again, I'm rounding in those numbers. If I could just, again, for a moment talk about where we are in the process of, and we had a lot of discussion in our most previous meeting, But we are still on target. The mayor will present his budget April 12th. Prior to that, we are very aggressively finalizing our plan for the current year reductions. And we talked earlier about finding a way in which we are able to communicate that to you as a council and as a committee prior to that moving forward. So I think we still have those logistics to work out. But again, we just finished budget reviews, which was a review of each division where we went through budget requests and scenarios for reductions with agencies to ensure that we understood the implications of any changes to those budgets, again, for both current year and moving forward for the next fiscal year's budget presentation by the mayor. So I just wanted to kind of bring you up to speed on that. And if you had questions, you know, just like to have an opportunity to answer those and clarify any information for you. But I didn't know if you wanted to move forward and have Bill and Ryan talk about the revenue and expenditure side and have questions at the end. Sure. Let's do that. That would be great. Thank you. And, Liz, Mr. Sten, did you want to ask her a question right now? Or is that from last time? Okay. Thanks. So the update on the four largest components of our general fund revenue for the month of February, we had some good news and some holding our breath. The best news was the employee withholdings came in at $21 million, and that compares to the budget for this month of $20.5 million. So we were up 2.4 percent over the monthly budget. Ahead for net profits, that's good news. Unfortunately, this is one of the lowest revenue months for net profits, so it's not a good trendsetter. We lost some ground in both insurance and franchise in the month of February compared to budget. So a better comparison would be the year to date. And so this shows us that we're at $103.3 million in employee withholdings against a budget of $100.2 million, and that's a 3.1 percent increase. The net profits are still double-digit behind where we want them to be. The insurance still shows ahead of last year, year-to-date, even including this month's disappointing results. We have lost some ground in the franchise fees. We started off behind budget. Then we had some very cold months, and we went ahead of budget. Now the weather started to moderate, so we're starting to see that in our franchise fee revenues. If you want to look at these sort of normalized, taking out the June of 2010 amnesty program, Our withholdings are up 2.73 percent. Net profits are down 19 percent. We still maintain the same position 8 percent ahead and 2 percent below on the franchise, insurance and franchise. Any questions on revenues? Any questions? Mr. Stinnett. I was just going to ask, based on the February numbers and what you all showed us two weeks ago at the council workshop, have there been any tweaks to the FY12 numbers on what you anticipate? Well, we think that we're still going with the totals that we presented two weeks ago. There might be a slippage in one and a gain in the other, but we still think those totals are good. On revenues and expenditures for FY11 as well? I can speak to revenues. I mean revenues. We're still good at the $265? I have to look at my notes, but whatever that was presented. Yes, sir. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Ms. Lawless? The franchise fees, does that include telephone? Well, it includes a telecommunications excise tax, which was implemented about four years ago. The state took that home rule away from local governments and went with a statewide excise tax. We get a flat percentage of that, so I don't remember the amount, but it varies just $1,000 or $2 from month to month. So it's basically a flat. That includes telephone and cable, telephone and cable. And it's significantly lower for cell phones, correct? Now, the cell phone has, I don't want to confuse your question, the cell phone has a separate fee associated to E911. That is outside the telecommunications excise tax. Right, but, I mean, it's significantly less than if you have a landline. I would have to. I don't know. I believe that's true, but anyway. I'm curious as to the rise in the insurance. Well, part of that is based on the base. We're comparing it to budget. And to give you some history, 09 was a very health – just a minute, I'll get it in front of me so I'm speaking correctly. 09, we came in at 20.5 million. And in 11, we were surprised to come in at 22, almost 22.9 million. We did not expect that 22.9 to occur in 11. So our budget is more toward the 2009 experience, and we are tracking pretty close to what we brought in last year. I just find that encouraging and interesting given, you know, foreclosures and the economy and cars and that kind of thing. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Mr. Lane. On the net profit tax, we had the slight increase for the month of February. Normally, would those taxes be paid around the month of April? That's the deadline in that time frame. Yes, sir. We have a budget of $28.4 million in net profits, and about $15 million of it should come in between now and the end of the year. So over 50% will be in the last quarter of the year. So that could be sort of scary, depending on how business it was last year, because people doing their tax returns won't know for sure. Okay. All right, that gives me a – I'll be looking for the April. April is a significant month. Thank you. Any other questions at this point? Continue, please. Ryan. Switching over to the expense side of the equation, some changes I want to kind of go through and explain. And to answer, Council Member Sennett's question, on the expense side, One of the first analyses we did when the data was in, we looked at our year-end projections, and on the operating side, we were comfortable with those as well, at least within a reasonable level of tolerance, as should always be on these large numbers. The personnel side, basically we accelerated in this month in terms of additional laps after we pay for health care, sort of over a million dollars in terms of savings to budget in the personnel category. And we hope this trend, again, accelerates considering the hiring freeze and some other things that have been put into place in the personnel side. The operating expense we had in both January and February, we had large months relative to historical spending patterns. So we lost some ground in that particular category. But, again, some other things are being implemented to hopefully accelerate that as well. And again, it was just a deviation from some historical spending patterns. Year-to-date, we have some savings in the debt service category. It's primarily two reasons for that. We have a refunder for which we did save some principal and interest on, as well as just some timing variations in that particular category. Partner agencies is a large one I want to draw your attention to. So historically, this was based on last year's spread since partner agencies' amounts have been allocated so much different year to year. And the library did not have a payment last year in the month of February. One more month, March results will more or less true that category up. So the variance year to date, you can basically attribute most of that is to that library payment. The insurance category, another thing that we are doing something differently. Historically, year-end, those charges would be made for our general liability and workman's comp. So the budget reflects that year-to-date, that there's basically no expenditures. However, there was an expenditure processed in that particular category. However, we just had a conversation with Law earlier today, and they're still of the opinion that the basic budget for general liability work in this comp and the general fund will be the number that comes in at year end. And capital, more or less, is a diminutous amount. So basically you see on the total expenditure side basically a million dollars over budget, but again, mostly that is explained and attributable to the payment to the library. Questions? Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for clearing that up. A couple things, observations. On the personnel expense, year-to-date we've saved a million dollars, and that's with a combination of vacancies, personnel laps, freezing, hiring, et cetera. So you're saying over the next four months we're going to get another million dollars on top of that because I think at the workshop you said we'd have $2 million in savings there. So how are we going to get it? If we got a million over the first eight months, how are we going to make up a million in four months? First let me say with about $190 million personnel budget in the general fund, we're talking about pieces of percents. So to pinpoint that, crystal ball is not that accurate. However, we're basically tracking about $300,000 below budget personnel category. January is anomaly because we had the sick checks that came in January. But basically this month we were about $300,000. So if you extrapolate that out. Now the caveat I would say is there's year-end accruals. And without actually accounting, spending all the time to figure out exactly how the year-end accruals on the personnel side goes, We're making some assumptions there. So at this point, we're not going to change the projection to $1 million. But again, in perspective, we're talking about pieces of an actual percent. So you're saying we're averaging about $300 million in savings per month? $300,000. $300,000, I mean? Yeah, a month. And that's based on your current estimates. We haven't been doing that since August, obviously, or we'd be much more ahead. Yes, with January's anomaly, we didn't have that in the beginning of the year. Basically, corrections is a big piece of that, along with police, or really the two that attribute mostly to that. Corrections had a class, didn't fill all their vacancies. They had some attrition. So every month that we have that hiring freeze in place, we hope that we accelerate that $300,000 a month. Well, you just alluded to some of the details that I've been asking for for a couple months now. You know, are these divisions such as corrections, I know Councilman Ellinger and I toured the facility a month ago, are they able to operate with a hiring freeze and maintain the current level of security out there in staffing, for instance? Who is making sure that's still a viable option? So, I mean, not to get into micromanagement, but some of these things are serious. If two categories amount for 90% of the savings, are we still able to operate those two categories? Again, we have been working with the division directors as we've gone through this analysis of reductions. And, again, we were talking about it earlier, staffing the minimum staffing levels, ensuring that as we move forward that if we need to hire a certain number of those vacancies to meet the minimum staffing level, that we understand what that piece is. So it's capturing, I think it's fair to say that in corrections, for example, that we can still capture some vacancies. We may have to fill some to meet, again, the minimum staffing level. But those are the kinds of analysis that we're doing. For corrections, there are posts that, you know, you have to have staffed at all times. So for their analysis, it's a pretty clear model that we can come up with. So we are doing that as we're working with each agency. In other words, we wouldn't wholesale cut and freeze every position, but looking at that program by program. Okay, so we have been working with Director Bishop, and we know what our bottom number is? Yes. In fact, just spent a long time talking to him. He did some work for us last week and over the weekend kind of hashing that out to make sure we understood that correctly. Well, my concern is the training and lag time it takes to get people hired at corrections or any public safety office. How are we accounting for the lag time? Because you can't, if we drop below that number you and I were just talking about, you can't just go out and hire off the street. So how are we going to? Right. Again, that's why we're going through the staffing analysis. that staffing analysis also shows us attrition rates and retirement rates. So, again, planning when we would move forward on hiring, potentially hiring, or not filling positions, that's all a part. We're taking into consideration how long it takes to get a man or woman on the street or in a post. Sure. And we'll sit here at the podium on expense levels. do you have the list that we asked for a couple weeks ago at the workshop about what expenses have gone over their budget that we have to account for such as the salt, the fire overtime, and where we're going to get those monies from? I can tell you where we've the big ones that we know about and we're working through the reduction plan to take those into consideration. Can we get a list that we asked for a couple weeks ago can we get a list to every council member showing us what they are and where we're going to get the money from? I can give you the list immediately as we present the budget reduction plan. It will show where it's coming from. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Lane? My question is similar to Council Member Stendhal. With regard to the numbers up on the screen, you mentioned there that you've made an adjustment for the actual health insurance cost. But as far as operating expenses, have you plugged the estimate for salt or, you know, extra fuel costs? Do you have, I mean, is this adjusted or just only in that one item is it adjusted up there? This is actual to budget. So those additional overages, if they're an actual expense, such as, I don't know for a fact, but if fire is over budget and over time, that would be included in that actual number. Okay. Well, I guess here's my question. We're showing about 2.6, and you said that may not be totally on the money because of some advanced payments or whatever, but if we continue to trend this way, then you're thinking with the other adjustments you're making, we'll make our shortfall for this fiscal year for revenue. I've never looked at it as the net income extrapolated out because we have large variations in revenue patterns and large variations in expense patterns. So if you look at our monthly budget spread, we have some months with very large negative net income, very large amounts, positive income. When we look at the year is the projections that we had given at the budget workshop. That's a better way to look at how we're going to end the year in terms of total revenue, total expenditures. You know what would be very helpful, I think, these reports are very good and excellent for the general public. I think it would be very helpful is after you've made the presentation to Budget and Finance and given your monthly report, we could get a more detailed financial so that the members on the Budget and Finance Committee could go over it and look at more of the line items just so we have a better grasp of what the numbers are. But that way we wouldn't be advancing this information prior to releasing it to the media, but it would allow us after the fact to, you know, look at it in more detail. Do you think we've not done that before? And because of the seriousness of our financial issues and this year and next year, I think for the Budget and Finance Committee to have the opportunity to review more detailed information, may be helpful to us a little bit later on when we're in the budget process. Does that create a problem, Commissioner? I think I would ask if we could work with you and if we could group them and we could get more detail but maybe group it so it's not every, you know, those reports are pretty voluminous. We don't think we have that much information because we haven't got that much time to review all the line items, but a more detailed breakout of cost items. Yeah, all I'm asking is if we could work together and get what specific information you're most interested in. That would be good. Thank you. That's all I have. Any other questions from Council? Thank you all. The next item on our agenda is a Council links discussion, and we brought this up about a week ago, but I just want to go ahead and just put it in the packet here so we wouldn't remember who all is on what assignments. If you would, go ahead and just post that up there so everybody knows what counseling committee they're assigned to. And the page before that. And actually, Paul, if you could, the way that we've organized this, if you could talk about that, because there's the way the government's been set up, and then it's also the way the administration is also kind of reorganizing it, And we've actually set these assignments up. I think the way you set it up was the way the reorganization is. If you would, can you talk about that? Thank you, Council Member. And you guys might have some debate with this, but the way the links are proposed to be organized now is how the administration is now organized or reorganized government, or at least their interim reorganization. So, for example, the CAO's office is part of general government, and things that used to be answered to another link, for example, planning historic preservation and purchase development rates, which were part of public works, are part of general government. It does put a real burden on that, at least one link, but I didn't know a better way to do it. It would seem disjointed if we tried to match the links with how the government or how the administration used to operate, realizing that the administration hasn't come to you folks with a reorganization plan. I didn't know how else to do it. So I've attempted to put into the links the way that the administration has reorganized government. I'm happy to try to address any specific question. Hopefully we haven't forgotten anything in the signing links. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'm the Chair of the General Services Committee, and I was just looking at the listing there. does that also include like the mayor's office and the CAO and those kind of issues? Yes. Yeah, it's right on page 12. Right. It includes the mayor, the chief general services, and it is actually under general government. Yeah. Well, it says general services here, but I guess it's really general. Well, actually on page 12, you have general government, page 12. That's the long one. Oh, okay. Now, I missed that one. No wonder it looks short to me. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Vice Mayor Gorton? Just a couple questions. Do we have a chief information officer yet? You don't have one. Okay. So that person isn't in place. So where are all those folks? Who's their boss? I think the answer to the CAO. Okay. Now, just in response to reorganization, the only body that can reorganize or restructure is the council. So technically the government has not been reorganized. And I had said that earlier, but I didn't know how else to do this. if the administration has in fact reorganized without coming to you folks. They can't do that, right? They can't, but they did. But it's officially no one but the council can reorganize the government. That's exactly right. But if you ask the director of human resources who he or she answers to, they would say the CAO are the org chart that you folks have would probably say differently. So we need to ask the CAO about this because. I do believe, I'm sorry, I do believe this item is in, I don't want to be passing the buck, but I'm going to pass the buck. I believe this item is in the General Government Committee for discussion at some point in time. I can speak to that. We did ask CAO Maloney to come down and address the reorganization of government because it does require a supermajority vote of the council to approve the change in government structure. And at the time, he did agree to come. Then he came back and said he wanted to delay that because I guess they're still, you know, working on the reorganization of government. But since we're getting into the budgeting area, I think that should be an item that got accelerated, had to have a report on how it's going to be restructured and get the council to approve it. So if I could ask, is it structured this way because there's just simply because, from a practical point of view, this is how the government is operating now? Is that what you were? That's what I was going under the impression, I mean, under the assumption as, yeah. Because just for example, I was just thinking human resources technically is under the finance, Commissioner of Finance, correct? It is until, yeah, but if you ask this commissioner, I don't think she has any direct supervision over HR since January 1 or whenever the new administration took over. So that was the dilemma I had when I was going through this thing. Well, I think this is a real problem because, you know, technically the government is not reorganized. And so even though it's going to be heard in general government standing committee, the council hasn't restructured anything. So I just find this very curious. I agree. Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. I was just also going to, I mean, I think we should operate under the current approved structure by council personally because, I mean, look at Division of Building Inspection. It's under the public safety link, but it really should be under public works because that's where it's currently under and that's where council approved it to be under. So is the vision of planning. You'll find about 15 examples of things like that. Well, they need to go back to what we've approved from a council standpoint and leave it at that. If they've made a temporary change, so be it, but it hasn't come to the full council yet for approval because I do know a couple of these will be debated and debated at length. So to make it arbitrarily changed just for this budget process shouldn't happen. Well, I'm open, and that's why I wanted to bring this forward. I can't make a motion on that, but. That's why I wanted to bring it forward to this committee so you all can decide, because when Paul and I talked, we both were not quite sure where we should head on this. So that's why we wanted to bring it to the council, and if somebody wants to make a motion. And Mr. Schoeniger, actually, I think you did two different ways of doing the committees, and we can do it either way that the budget finance would like the council links to represent. but if the way it was going to be restructured is the way the new administration is, but they still have to come to us to do that. Mr. Lane, did you? I'd like just to make a short follow-up comment. Yeah, I think this would be very cumbersome for the council to try to review a new budget which is not in line with the way the government is organized. And so we either need to get the government reorganized to mirror the budget or leave it as it is and have the new budget mirror the current operations of the government under the approved resolution or ordinance that we have. And that was the issue when we were trying to come up with this is how do we do it? Because, and I see, Mr. Maloney, would you like to address this issue by chance? Right. While he's coming to the stand, I'd like to say that's why I was confused, because the General Government Committee covers General Service Administration, Facilities Fleet Management, and Parks and Recreation. So when I saw that, I thought that's what we were reviewing. We're just calling it General Services, because the Links Committee is not necessarily aligned with the General Committee then. But I missed the General Government on the page preceding. You have a whole page of that stuff to do. You have plenty of work to do. Don't worry. We're not shorting you at all. Thank you. Sorry, I've just been in meetings. They just called me out of it. Go ahead. What would you want to know about the? Well, the way that the links have been organized matches how the administration has reorganized. I think the dilemma is that the council hasn't heard your reorganization plan, nor, more importantly, hasn't approved the reorganization plan. So I think they're asking me to go back and put the various divisions, departments, that you folks have moved back to its original link. For example, HR, Human Resources, which used to be part of finance, as I understand it's part of the CAO's office, planning, historic reservation, a few others that used to be in public works and or environmental quality are in the CAO's office. I think their direction is to move it back to the organization plan that they know. It would be fine. Y'all can put it in there, but either me or someone else will get up and speak on those because they have not been in the process. It's just a re-ordered structure that was under the previous CAO under there, So we're trying to, not just the one before when Milton was here, HR, and I think a lot of those other things were under Milton. So we have not approved anything. We're just a real structure right now. And when we get the budget finalized, hopefully we'll come in here and propose how we want to restructure this. But you really have reorganized things if, for example, human resources doesn't answer to the finance commission. It answers to us right now. And that means it has been reorganized. Well, but it hadn't. It's just a reorgan process. We're trying to make sure what best things work the best way. I think I've gotten my marching orders from these folks to go back and reorganize that. That's fine. I'd show up wherever you all have it. I'd show up. That'd be fine. Well, I think the big issue is if there's a reorganization, it's going to be a budget, and there's going to have to be budget amendments because the council is the one that's going to have to be the final say on how it's going to be reorganized. That's fine. If you all want to go back to where it was, that'll be fine. We're just right now, we're just trying to make it pitch and see right the way it is. Mr. Lane, are you through? Mr. Maloney, I feel it would be very beneficial if you could bring your reorganization plan to council right away so that the budget could be aligned with your reorganization plan And we could even align the links committees with that plan so that when we go into the process of the budget, I think it would flow a lot more smoothly and more efficiently and more productively. But if you're not in a mode where you can present your reorganizational plan for some reason, then, you know, you'd have to maybe just let us know what that reason is. I do that, boy. And I think that was what the quandary that Mr. Schoeniger was in, is trying to decide on where each one is because there is the old structure and the new structure, and we didn't know where the actual link should be. But I think we have a way that the Council wants us to proceed. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I was going to kind of follow what Mr. Lane was doing, but actually put it in the form of a motion and just ask the CAO or the Mayor to come and present the restructure to us so that we can go ahead and deliberate on it and either pass it or not pass it. So it's in the Charter? Can you read the citation, please? If I might. Certainly, Vice Mayor. According to the Charter, Section 6.12, the Council of the merged government shall have the power to consolidate, divide, and otherwise restructure the organization of all departments, offices, and divisions, provided that, that, and then the important part here is, any ordinance to consolidate, divide, or restructure shall be passed by three-fifths vote of the council. So it is in the charter. So I would think that it would be appropriate to ask them to draft the ordinance change and present what they want to do to the full council, and then let us debate it and then vote up or down. I have a motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. And we have a motion and a second. Vice Mayor? Is your motion, did you say before the budget? Well, I guess the. I mean, there really isn't time before the budget. Well, going back to Councilman Lane's conversation, it was either bring us the reorg so that we can approve it or revert back to the way it's supposed to be. So I guess if we're going to revert back. Well, I mean, I think it's a good thing that we look at the reorganization that you think will be helpful. When we did this one other time before, we had a full-blown workshop. We understood the ramifications of it and had extensive discussions before we reorganized. So this is not a one-hour discussion, I don't think. I agree. So I guess you're saying that we revert back then. I would say there isn't time to do it for the budget, is my opinion. Mr. Stinnett had discussion. Well, I was just going to add to that. The problem is, and Richard, correct me if I'm wrong, when you prepare your budget, it needs to be prepared in the old way that we've approved, not in the new structure, because if it is, the monies will not flow properly. So as long as we all agree to do that, then we can hear the reorg after the budget is presented. But between now and April 12th, if you already printed the budget under your new system, we're going to have a big issue with it. And that's what made it difficult for us when we were setting the links because we want to be setting the people that are going to be hearing the ones that are actually in that link. And if it's not going to be the ones, if there's a new restructure, then we want to make sure we had the right people in the right spots. That's what makes it difficult for us. Mr. Kay. Mr. Kay. I have a question for Commissioner Driscoll and then a comment, if I can. Well, maybe a statement and then a question. My presumption is you've been working on this budget given the tentative restructuring that's been going on since January 1. Is that correct? That is correct. The question is, how difficult would it be to shift now back to the previous structure, given the work that's been done? It's going to be difficult from a production standpoint. I will tell you, Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, things like HR, you're still going to be able to capture the HR cost center. But, yes, we've been proceeding as we ask the question, you know, as we move forward, because obviously it takes a lot of structural changes within the system. So we'd be reversing all of that and timing. It would be tough from a production standpoint. Okay. So do you want to add something to that? No, I just want to make sure I was correct. I know we can still isolate segments, HR, code enforcement, et cetera. It just wouldn't roll up the same way. But individually, the divisions could be looked at similarly as they can under a previous structure. Okay. Given that response, I'm wondering if there's a way to separate out these two questions. One has to do with reorganization, and I hear clearly that that's a function of council, and it's not a simple function. and that attempting to answer that before the budget process goes forward would be, basically it's not feasible. And I'm also hearing that given the work that's been done, redoing the way in which the administration has been working on the budget would also be extremely difficult. Is there a way to move forward understanding that what we're dealing with is a tentative restructuring as just a practical way to address the budget questions that we have before us? Thank you. Mr. Meery. Thank you, Chair. And these are issues towards the motion, correct? Yes. That's on the floor? Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, sir. The numbers that are assigned to each profit center or expense center, whatever it may be. Chart fields? Yeah. All the same. They would stay the same, though, in every organization? How will they roll up then? Well, again, in the system you're able to put different centers, chart fields together to roll up to a, under a commissioner's area. And so you can't move that around fairly easily. You set that in the system so it's going back. Again, all the chart fields, NHR, finance, et cetera, those are all still segmented. but it is a lot of technological change to make an adjustment on how things roll up. That's why we asked, you know, a question early on how we should proceed. Okay. This question actually is for the members of the committee. At the time that Mayor Newberry took office, he decided he did not want a CAO. He wanted a senior advisor. And was that specifically brought to us by ordinance and approved? It was? I didn't remember whether it was or not, but when they keep talking about, when they've talked about going back to, I didn't know what they were going back to. Were they going back to Teresa Isaac's organization, or were they going back to Mayor Newberry's organization, or what? Exactly. Hello, Mayor. I think we have a speaker, if you would, give your name and your address. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that a lot. You know, one of the advantages of this is I can be in a meeting downstairs and the TV be on, and so I can see what y'all are talking about. It works very efficiently, very well. I think, and listening to the conversation, and of course being on the council before, it gives me a little bit of understanding of the questions that you all have. So my interpretation of what we're doing right now, not my interpretation, but my purpose and mission, is that we will try to do our best in a short period of time to engineer a new budget, to create a budget that is a real severe challenge. Of course, you all know that. I'm not telling you anything. Part of that will, by necessity and essentially mean that we will need to make some adjustments in order to become more efficient. That translates into some organizational shifts. And there's nothing Machiavellian about this whatsoever. What it's about is trying to get our expenses down and within our revenues. So my interpretation of our charge is to create a budget, and that budget wraps around when it needs to organizational restructuring. Now, I just want to say again, there's nothing dramatic, there's nothing, no big deal about it. It's what we're trying to do is operate both efficiently, responsibly, and within our means. And we don't think that you're trying to do anything behind our back, I guess. But sometimes I know that, you know, the interpretation can occur. I think, as the vice mayor said, that there are charter requirements that have to happen. So as we do this, we will present whatever restructuring it represents. But the revenues and the budget are going to drive that in many respects. I think there's some questions. Mr. Beard, do you have anything further? Okay. Mr. Lane, I think he had a question for you, Mayor. Good afternoon, Mayor. Welcome, Lord. Sure. Here's my concern. If you go ahead and do your budget, our next meeting is on the 12th of April, and you also bring your reorganization down. If the reorganization comes before us and there's something, parts of it, that council doesn't like, then we're going to change it. You may have to do that. So that's going to muddy the budgetary process up because you've – These things are messy, aren't they? Right. So what I was suggesting, I'm only trying to be proactive here. I understand. If we could figure some way to get the reorganization in front of the council as soon as possible, even if we might have to call a special meeting because this is really important, get that approved so that when your budget comes in, then we'll just be looking at the numbers and not worrying about the reorganization aspect. These are really on parallel tracks, Ed. Mr. Lane, Council Member Lane, excuse me. These are really on parallel tracks. The only experience I know is the experience I've had in almost 40 years. And when we're working with creating and developing a budget, that often, I don't know if it, well, it always involves organizational adjustments. So those are going to come together at the same time. There's no escaping of that. So I'll try. I mean, what I'll ask our folks to do is, as much as possible, provide any heads up that we can. But I just ask you for an understanding. You know, we're looking at 8% on this budget, and I don't think maybe some of you have been here longer than I have. I don't think that we've had that kind of a level of adjustment and adaption required. Well, I mean, I agree. I think you've got a hard job in front of you. I'm not complaining. I love it. But, you know, good problem solving. To be collaborative with the council so that we could, you know, get the issue of the reorganization behind us. Then we can put all of our focus on the budgetary issue, I think, is a plan that is a win-win from the council's standpoint and from your office's standpoint. Yeah, I appreciate that, and we'll do the best we can. Just know that we're pretty much, you all recognize, it's crunch time up against the wall. So we'll do the best we can. I understand the anxiety that it represents, not knowing all the answers right now. Okay? Thank you. Thanks for coming in and talking with us. Thank you. You're welcome. Anytime. I say it's convenient being on the first floor. Yes, thank you. We do have a motion on the floor, I think, that was brought by Mr. Myers. And I see some more people that are on here. Do you want to speak to the motion, Mr. Martin? Who else would I like to speak to? Vice Mayor Gorton? Are these the people? Well, I have the list, but Mr. Blues. Okay. Dr. Blues? To the motion. Yes, sir. Dr. Blues? Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, I think there might be a question for you here. Since you have walked upstairs, we might keep you a minute here if you don't mind. Dr. Belouis? I don't necessarily have a question for the mayor. I think it's a question for all of us because the mayor has suggested that he wants to run on parallel tracks here. that is the reorganization and the efficiencies of the government and the budget and reducing costs, but the third rail here is the charter. We've got to figure out some way that we can, if we're going to somehow manage this in a relatively short time, is how we can get together on it. But I think that if we pass Council Member Myers' motion, we'll be, I think that's kind of premature here until we really figure out how we can do this is what I'm getting at. And if you would, Mr. Myers, would you repeat your motion, please, for that? The motion was simply to have the mayor or the CAO or both present the reorganization to the council so that we can either approve it or at least have that discussion. I guess the question I'd have is what was the time frame you wanted to have that? Because between now and our next meeting is not going to be until the mayor has his proposed budget to the council on the 12th of April. So when would you consider having this reorganization? Because by the time we have our next meeting, the mayors are going to be presenting the budget, so that will be part of that new budget. Council Member Lane mentioned that even if we had to have a special meeting, that might be the thing to do. I guess the way I look at it is the charter is the charter. And while I agree with the mayor, there's nothing dramatic here and there's not any anxiety up here. There's a charter that we have to comply with. And so to me it makes more sense to have, and I'm going to go back to the parallel tracks. The commissioner said that they've already started to organize the budget around whatever these restructures are. So it seems to me if it's a parallel track, you could go ahead and bring the restructure in here to us now. Because it sounds like you already have been working on that track and already know some of the things that you're going to move in order to make your budget work. So to me, I think we need to go ahead and have a special meeting and hear from the administration what the restructure is going to be. I think we all know the word hypothetical. If you let me finish. At this point in time, Council Member Myers, at this point in time. Hold on, hold on, hold on. I have the floor. I will give the mayor the leeway here to answer this question since we have asked him. Mayor, please. Thank you. At this point in time, where we are in the budget, we are examining everything. That means that everything at this point in time is still hypothetical. Any changes are hypothetical at this point in time. They're not cast. What we're doing by collaborating is just what that word represents, collaborating. The charter does not require that the mayor present to the council the budget until the charter requires it on April the 12th. Now, we are bringing to you a lot of what we are considering. I don't know from a day-to-day basis. I have no crystal ball right now. I know that we have a lot to accomplish. Okay? and that these issues, organizational issues, merge with operational and financial issues. That is how it works. Are you finished? Yes. And how it works is we have a charter, and you said that all your changes are hypothetical, which means if they're hypothetical, then you can go ahead and revert the budget back the way the charter has outlined it right now, and then after we pass the budget, if you want to make some changes for next year, we can do it that way. What we heard from the commissioner was you've already traveled down that road, and to change it back would be a lot of work. But you just said it was hypothetical that nothing's been set in stone. I'm not going to get wrapped around an axle like this, Council Member Myers. What I'm trying to do is to create a budget based on the time frame that we are required to by charter. And that may involve operational and organizational adjustments. And it can involve us if it likes, but the charter still requires that two-thirds of the council approve those changes. I think what the mayor is saying is that they can bring the budget, and after the budget is presented, then that's when the reorganization. We're going to meet the charter's requirements then. And then it's up to the council at that point if we want to accept that reorganization. And then we're back in the same boat that Councilman Lane talked about, and that is that if you bring this, we've already heard that some of those changes you're going to make are controversial. if we elect not to make those changes by three-fifths vote, then we've got a real situation here because the charter also requires that a budget be passed by a certain date. And if we don't approve those changes, then we won't have a budget. But I think that's just part of the budget process that we'll have to go through. I know it would be nice if we could go ahead and talk about that ahead of time with the mayor and the administration, but it's still until they bring it to us on the 12th, that's when it goes forward. I guess the only heartburn I'd have is when we asked the commissioner of finance, and we talked about human resources, and she at this point doesn't feel like human resources answers to her, answers to the COO. So I think some of the council members think that it's already been done, and that's where I think it's. We are having, whenever organizational changes occur, there is a time period during which we use our judgment. It's what God gave us. And we make adjustments often as we move. We make organizational adjustments. We make reporting adjustments. These lines are not rigid lines. Anyone who has been in any organizational environment understands that. And I don't mean to be demonstrative, and I don't mean to be lecturing anybody, and that's not what I'm doing. I'm just trying to say this is the natural migration and evolution of change. And I think everybody respects that and understands that you're prerogative as mayor. I guess what the council and this committee is asking is if we can maybe in the interim could at least have a diagram of what's going to happen. So when it comes to us, then we will then be on the same page and they will be parallel tracks. And it won't be after it's presented that it's going to be. When I am equipped, I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, and when I am equipped with the data and the information to make those what is today hypothetical and soft lines, hard lines on an org chart, I quite understand and respect that opportunity. And I will do that. I guess you would say that it would be a work in progress is what you would be saying. Wonderful language. Okay. Wonderful language. I just have one final comment, and that is that we have heard from the CAO on different occasions that different departments in government have been moved under different people's management. We just heard from the commissioner today, just like the chair said, that HR does not report to her according to what the structure of government is right now. Well, let me – So let me just send you some – my last statement. You can say whatever you want. I'm done. Okay. So you've changed this from – at one point, it's already done, and we've changed the budget to go in this direction. You've changed it. Then you say it's hypothetical. The fact is we've heard from different people in your administration that you've already restructured the government and that people are already reporting to people other than the way the current org chart is built. That requires a charter change before it can happen. That has not happened. I would encourage you to give us the heads up before the budget, because if we go into the budget like this and you've got all this restructure in there, it's probably going to be a tough budget session. Thank you. It is going to be a tough budget session. I think we all know that. That's good news. We've got opportunity. Thank you very much. Mr. Maloney, do you want to add any comment? I want to give you all a heads up. I've always said we are making changes in reorg. I've given you all a heads up on some things that I didn't feel that were fitting in the right place. And what the council has helped, you all told me there was a good decision to move certain things around that don't need to be in there. That's why we're in a work process, and I've always been up front with you guys on what we're trying to do. And we're not here to hide anything. But I think when the mayor makes his presentation in the budget, you're going to see where everything comes together, and then you all can make that decision there. But we have not been here to hide. I've always been up front with you what we're doing and trying to push. And then last week in the morning of the committees, you all asked to move planning, I mean planning, separate planning and building inspection. So we are doing that too. So a lot of you all have been helping us put on that. So there's going to be, when the mayor presents his report, it's going to be with just some of y'all's ideas and some of the ideas we have, and I've been straightforward with all of you all. We don't question that. It's just I think we just want to know from the restructuring when we are going to know when that's going to happen. Because when we're doing the links, we're going to know how we would need to organize the links on who's, where, what is, what division is where. Some more issues on the motion. I have a list here of these all. Mr. Blues, you spoke. Mr. Martin, you're on here. Did you want to speak to the motion? Vice Mayor Gorton, did you want to speak to the motion? Well, I had a couple questions. One, I think we need to find out from law if we haven't approved a new structure and the budget makes a new structure, whether the budget needs a three-fifths vote to pass, I think that's an important question. So if, in other words, if, in essence, when we pass the budget, we're actually restructuring, does it then fall into the three-fifths vote? It's not just a majority. It's a simple majority then. And I think it's a good question that needs to be asked. So we need to know that. And then I guess my other question would simply be, could the administration bring the new organizational chart, which it sounds like the budget will be in a new organizational chart? I think we're all hearing that same thing. Can you bring it to us for discussion, even if it's the same day, before the budget? I mean, we're sort of in a bind here because. And I think that goes to the motion. That was a question I asked about the motion. When do you want to have the. And I think this would give us a drop dead date that we would say this is when we want the menstruation. And if it is the day of, then we could put a special meeting on the 12th before we have the budget address. And they should at that time know what it's going to be. Right, because I think it, I mean, I think council members, I'm only speaking for myself, but I want to comply with the charter. We have to do that by law. But I want to honor efficiencies and any ideas that are brought forward to reorganize. But we've got to comply with the charter. So I hope that we can. So would you want to make an amendment to his motion then and put a date on that? But we have a presentation of the new structure on April the 12th. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the amendment? Mr. Lane? Yes. Vice Mayor, I just throw this out for an idea. The 12th is on a Tuesday. What if we did it on a Monday? The day before, that would give us 24 hours sleep on it. I'm sorry, Mr. Stenick, can you speak on your speaker? I'm not sure, you know, 12 hours will make that much difference, actually, quite honestly. And on the 12th, we have a 10 o'clock core meeting, we have a 1 o'clock general government, and then the work session and the budget address is at 3. When would you be thinking about having that? 11.30. At 11.30. You want to have a council the whole meeting? We certainly could. We'd have an hour and a half. Well, at this point, since we can't really have, we don't have a work session, we can't, I guess we could have a budget meeting, I guess. I could call a special budget meeting at this point. We could have it at that, and then everybody could be there, and we could ask the administration at that point to bring the organizational chart to a special budget meeting. So can I suggest that perhaps we just call a special council meeting? And I think members can call a special meeting, and then the mayor would be in charge of that meeting. I think it would be good to have him there too. Or I guess the vice mayor, you could call. You can call a special meeting, can't you? What can you call? By charter, what are you allowed to call? I could call a lot of things, I guess. I would have to go back and look. I think I can. I think you can, too. But it would be good, I think, to have the administration. I agree. We're all in this together, so I think it would be very helpful. I think a motion would be good, but that only applies to the budget finance, and I can't at this point bring it to the full council because we're not going to have a meeting by that time, by the 12th. So I think it's probably going to almost have to be the vice mayor, unless I call a special meeting for the Budget and Finance Committee, then I think it's going to be the vice mayor has to call it for the whole council. Okay. I'll have to read up on how I do that. I know, it's in the charter. I'll review that. And Mr. Schoener, I think, could you give us some information about the eight members being able to call a special meeting? I believe a majority of council can, it's the vice chair or a majority of the council can call a special meeting as well. Vice mayor? The vice mayor or, and there's. We've got 10 here. Any other questions on the motion? Actually, this would be on the amendment. All those in favor. Ms. Lawless, the amendment would be for April 12th at 1130. A special council meeting? I think it would be the committee of the whole, but I'm not sure. Because we can't vote at a committee of the whole. 1130, I thought you said. 1130 on the 12th. So I guess my question is, wouldn't that need to be a special council meeting so that we can vote? I think so, but I don't think I can as a budget can make a motion on that. I can only do it for the budget. Mr. Schoeniger, could you give us some, what can we do here as the budget? I don't know. I'm going to rely on somebody else. Well, I guess as being a budget and finance committee, and we're making a motion for the committee is all we can do at this point, is it not? Because we as a committee can't call council the whole meeting. We can just call a budget meeting. It would be my interpretation. That's right. So we would have a special budget meeting. But the vice mayor can call a special meeting of the council at any time. And I guess that's – do we want to go through the route of having a motion here and the budget fines to it, or would we rather just have the vice mayor call a special council meeting? If that's the case, I think you would withdraw your motion. We just have the vice mayor call a special council meeting on the 12th at 1130. And that way everybody's involved. And I think that might be the better approach. Right. I guess I still, is the purpose of this to vote on how we're going to do the links or? No, this would be the motion is for having the administration come and give us their reorganization, is my understanding on your motion. That is correct. A presentation on the reorganization. A presentation on the reorganization, yes. Okay, thank you. So if you want to withdraw your motion, then we can have the Vice Mayor then call a special council meeting. Okay, I will withdraw my motion. Okay, and does the second agree? Yes, sir. Okay, Vice Mayor. Okay, this is in the council rules. Would you like to hear it? Yes, ma'am. Section 4.103, Special Meetings, the presiding officer or a majority of the members of the council or council committee or subcommittee may call a special meeting. So I believe that would mean you could call a special budget and finance committee meeting. I can call a special council meeting. I can call a special budget meeting, but I think we would prefer you to have a council meeting, so I think it would be in your purview to do that. So, Mr. Martin. Does the rules, Vice Mayor, I don't have my rules book in front of me, but does it say, who may call a special council meeting? It says the presiding officer. Of the subcommittee or committee. But that's just for that committee. Right. But the presiding officer of the council is the mayor. The presiding officer or a majority of council members. Or a majority of council members. So, I think we have to have a majority. The presiding officer of the Cal meeting is the vice mayor. So she can call a special committee of the whole meeting. Of the Cal. Right. Of the Cal, yes. So we can't vote in a Cal meeting because it's a committee meeting. If we have a regular council meeting, then we can vote and make a resolution. Correct. Vice mayor. So with that, this body could vote to have a special council meeting. I don't think so because I think we're in a budget meeting right now, and I don't think we can call that because we're not in a CAL meeting. If we'd been in a CAL meeting, I think we could do that. At this point, all I think this committee can do is call a special budget and finance meeting, is my interpretation. But I think you on your own, as the Vice Mayor, can call a special meeting. And here we have Law coming down, and they might want to help us out, because they've watched this sausage and probably are really just turning over. So do you want me to answer who can call a council meeting? Yes, please. Okay. The Mayor or a majority of the council? Would we be able to do that in the budget and finance with the majority, or do we have to do it? No. We would not. I didn't think so. Okay. You would have to be meeting as the council in order to vote to have a special meeting. But how about a committee of the whole meeting? We could do that. The vice mayor could call a committee of the whole meeting. Can I ask a question? Hold on. Vice mayor had a question. Sorry. I just have a suggestion. It looks like really the only thing we can do is for me to call a special committee of the whole work session. We would invite the mayor, the CAO, and the necessary administration people, and then if we chose, we could move it that Tuesday onto the 14th docket, a restructuring. Correct. Would that work for everybody? I think so. That might be the best. Mr. Lane. Ms. George. Ms. George. I just have a question. With regard to a council member's calling a meeting, could not a council member sign some type of a letter or memorandum saying that we want to call a special meeting? Do you have any definitive information on that at all? We have precedent of that once before. It seems to me that would be the way we could never call a meeting because we wouldn't have a meeting to call one at unless we could do it as a group. You are correct. You all have done it that way before, so there is precedent for doing it that way if that's the pleasure of the group. Okay. That's what I suggest is we just call a meeting and get eight or more council members to sign requests. Is it eight or ten? I'm thinking on that it's ten. It's a majority. Is it eight? It's a simple majority. Because if the mayor calls a special meeting, I think there had to be ten for that one. Well, he's the presiding officer. No, the mayor can call a meeting as the presiding officer without a vote of the council. Ten would have to be there for a quorum. Ten would have to be there for the quorum. Right. You still have to have your quorum, correct? Ms. Lawless. Could possibly we just see if the mayor is watching TV and could come up here and call a special council meeting? No. Maybe Mr. Maloney could do it in his absence. He might have turned to a more interesting channel by now. All right, hold on, knock, knock. Let's get back here. Vice Mayor, what would you like to do? I want to do whatever you all want to do. We're talking about a difference of two days. Right. I just wondered if that would be, I don't care either. We don't need a council meeting. Right, I think what you suggested would be appropriate if we do it at 1130 on the 12th and then you bring it forward to the Thursday night meeting and ask them on the Tuesday to come before with us the restructuring. And I think you all can do that, correct? Because that would be the day that the budget's being presented, so you should have that restructuring at that point. So Vice Mayor? That would give the council a couple of days to think about the presentation and the questioning and all of that before the Thursday night. So I'd like to. Well, it wouldn't be a couple days because they would bring it at 1130 and then they presented it at 3. Oh, put it. Well, to put it on the docket for Thursday. Exactly. Which would give it the restructuring. Mr. Stinnett, if you would, use your microphone, please. No, I was just making a point. We don't have to docket. It doesn't have to be approved by Thursday. If it's part of the budget, it would be for that two-month budget period. Right, exactly. We could take two months to approve that. I think the idea is here is we want to try to be, as he said, be on the same parallel track, because if we don't agree with the restructuring, then it kind of makes the whole budget process go implode, because now we're really trying to figure out who's going to be where. Yeah, but the problem is if we disagree with a piece of it, then we're going to go back in there and physically change the budget. And that's what we said when the mayor came and spoke. That is, it's his prerogative, it's his budget, and it's his restructuring. That doesn't mean we have to agree with it. But if they could bring the reorganization, we'll know what we're going to be dealing with. But it didn't have to go on the docket any time. Right. Why do I? Any other further comments? I think, Mr. Lane, you were on here. Mr. Lane? I just wanted to add a thought. is that if we could get the budget or the reorganization behind us, then when the budget comes out, it could be aligned with the reorganization. My concern is if we don't get that done and you bring the budget in and then we don't agree with the realignment, you're going to have to go back and completely redo the budget, move all the money around, print out new budgets. I mean, it's going to be really an administrative nightmare if we have to do that. So that's why I was encouraging bringing the reorganization here sooner sooner rather than later. Any other comments? Mr. Martin? I just want to agree with almost everything that's been said. I'm not sure what's all been said because we've been around this a couple times. But I do agree that the mayor is the one preparing the mayor's proposed budget, and he has the authority to bring us whatever budget he wants to propose to us. And so I think if the mayor wants to show a reorganization in the course of that budget, he can do that. But I also agree that the administration can't put in place a present reorganization, start moving things around without the council's approval. I think that's clear in the charter. I did have a question for Commissioner Driscoll. The mayor established a finance advisory group in late January. And can you tell me how many times that's met and how they're doing? We have met once, but we've communicated by email on various occasions in terms of sharing financial information. And then Mr. Kubine gathered some information from the group that he presented to you in the workshop. Are they still going to be addressing the short-term budgetary challenges? They are. We have been in communication with them, and so they will be assisting us in some of those reviews. Are they going to present something to the council at all, or is this just for the administration's information? We would incorporate that in our presentation to you. And then if you had follow-up questions, we could deal with those questions. Okay. If we could move on, we have two more people who have questions. Plus, we need to decide which way we're going to do the links, how we're going to structure it. And also, we have the proposed council whole budget schedule in here, too, that we've got to deal with. And we've only got a few more minutes. So, Mr. Myers, you had a question? I just want to do it. Now that we have two attorneys in the audience and we didn't before, I wanted law to tell us if we have not, if the council has not approved a restructuring according to the charter and the restructuring is reflected in the budget, then does that mean that the budget will require a three-fifths vote according to the charter for restructuring? And you don't need to answer it today, but I think we need to have that answer. I agree. I think that's a big question. It's no longer an eight-majority vote then on the budget. Mr. Myers, you had a question. Thank you. I just had a final comment, and I appreciate all the conversation we've had around this issue today. My hope was, like everybody else's, is that we can have the easiest budget cycle as possible, and I, too, would encourage the administration to bring the restructure as far in advance as possible so that we can at least look at it and review that and get a feel for it instead of just having to pass that and the budget at the same time. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Kay? My comment was just in the interest of efficiency, that we continue with the links as they've been proposed here today. since I think it's reasonable to assume that some major proportion of the proposed reorganization will carry forward, and then we won't have to redo the entire structure of our budget. Is that a motion? I'll make that in the form of a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second that we will use the links as is presented here on which division would be the ones that they would look at. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. I was opposed. That passes. And we had one no, I hear. And then the second item, or the last item, was the proposed committee, the whole budget schedule. And I asked Mr. Schoeninger, once again, Mr. Schoeninger, if you would prepare this in pretty much in the same way that we've done it in the past. But the only issue is since we don't have as many work sessions and we've kind of had to consolidate some days together. So if you would kind of go through what you prepared. Thank you, Council Member. As I said, as Council Member Ellinger said, I just kind of used previous years as a template. The only dates that are really, really, really established are the April 12th mayor's budget address, and then June 21st and 23rd, the first and second reading in the budget. But in between those two points, I just tried to pencil in dates, or not pencil in dates, they're actually typed in dates. But I also attempted to utilize meetings where you folks are here, or some of you at least are here. I don't know if you had any questions about it. It starts after the mayor. I think Mr. Stinnett had a question. Sure. Yeah, just in essence of time, I know two years ago this council started a budget workshop for bonding, and I think it's been very helpful on going over our bond program and what we've approved, and we talked about last November, to start that bond workshop in April once we get our marriage-proposed budget so that we can look at the bonds before we pass a budget rather than latter. So is there not a way in April to include a bond workshop either on the 14th or 28th of April so that we can look at what bonds we haven't issued? We have $55 million of bonds sitting out there that we haven't issued, as well as what bonds are in the budget, as well as how we're going to budget bonding going forward. In other words, we have the issue with PDR. We put it in the budget and other projects, but we don't end up funding them. We've got to change that practice, too. I think the 28th would probably be the appropriate time for that. Is there anybody who would like to make a motion that we accept this? Sir, are you scheduling that the 28th? Well, I was going to put that in there if we want to add that date into the 20th. That would be with the debt and capital. I think that would be appropriate to put it in at that time. And we might want to restructure then the time and maybe make it 3 o'clock instead of 4 o'clock. Very good. Thank you, Chair. And what I'm thinking is if we make a motion and then we'll pass this for the full council and at that time at the full council then needs to, once you have some time between now and then, to go over this and make sure that these dates all work with you. And that way we can get this moving forward because the times are here. Let's see. Vice Mayor Gorton, I have you on here. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of things. On May 26th, there are items that need to be discussed in a quarterly cow. And so if we can either adjust the time of that so that we can keep the integrity of the quarterly cow, I think council members have been giving me their issues, So I think we don't want them to wait until the next quarter. We can move that probably to 3 o'clock then instead of 4.30. On the 26th of May. On the 26th of May, yes. And it might be that the quarterly Cal could be 5 to 6. Well, you have originally 4.30. And what I was going to say is we just move the links out in discussion instead of 4.30 to 3 o'clock. and move it a little early since you are going to be having issues at that quarterly cow. Okay. And then the other item is I asked law, but I have not heard back yet about ratification. They actually did send an email out in response to that question that you asked. Okay, ratification of the budget, and it's not really, there's no date in here for that. And so the question is, does it have to be done at a full council meeting? I'll read you her response, Vice Mayor Gorton. The first and second reading of the budget can be on any day of the week, so long as an official council meeting. The council meeting is convenient as a council with the mayor presiding and not convenient as a committee. I hope this answers your question. It was about ratification, not first and second reading. So the question is, can we ratify the budget at a Committee of the Whole work session, which I think we cannot. So in other words, ratification will either need to be June 9th or a special meeting before that, or the next week in order to have first reading on the 21st. I believe we do actually have a council meeting on the 21st. We have that assigned, so that's when we have the first reading. Yes, but I'm talking about ratification, where the council says we vote to say, yes, this is our proposed budget we want to put on for first reading. Do we have to have, yes, a special meeting for that? And we can wait and hear from law. I mean, this is not new. Then I might have to add an extra date on that. Thank you. Council Member Stenet? Normally it's done on the day we have the special man, the first reading. We move to place it on the docket, then they give it first reading. We do that, yes, for ratification. We do that on June 21st. And that would be my interpretation, too. That's what we've done in the past. Right. Do we have a motion to accept this schedule as proposed? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Any other business before this committee? Do I have a motion to adjourn? So may I have a second? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you all.