The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Thank you. This meeting is a committee of the whole budget meeting for the Council. And today our topic is to hear from Connie Underwood, who is our budget analyst for the season, to have her remarks on the mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 12. So, Connie, welcome, and thank you for putting together all the good information you've been giving us along the way. You're welcome. Good morning. Thank you. And I've been asked to come today and give you all a summary of what's in the mayor's proposed budget document. This summary leans heavily on the general fund because that is the one most people are most interested in. It provides most of the services to our residents. I wanted to give everyone, particularly those new council members, a little review of how our budget fund structure is set up. We have multiple funds in the urban county government. Most, many of them aren't actually, you won't see when we do budget time because they are adopted by budget amendment throughout the year and not as a part of original budget. We have our General Services District. General Services provides most of your basic services for police, fire, planning, parks, libraries and other services. The General Services District's main funding source is the employee withholdings, net profit fees, and property taxes. When you look at your audit, there are other funds rolled together to have a general fund total. That includes the donation fund, which is established by budget amendment throughout the year, tenant relocation, and miscellaneous special revenue. Relocation and miscellaneous special revenue are a part of this budget submission, and you'll see them in the summary document when you get to the other funds. The Urban Services District Fund accounts for our streetlights, street cleaning, and refuse collection services. It is primarily funded by a property tax. People who have those services in our community pay a specific tax for each of the services in order to receive the services. We have several special revenue funds. Our spay and neuter fund, which was set up for a special fee that's collected. Our police confiscated funds. Our public safety fund. Municipal aid. The municipal aid program fund is the fund that has gas tax money that comes back to us from the state. Municipal is used for our city streets. The county road aid program is the same program, but it's our rural road program. And we have our mineral and coal severance funds, also programs that come from the state. Mineral and coal are often not included in original budget. They're often adopted by budget amendment later. And this fiscal year, they are included in the original budget submission. We have our capital projects funds for major capital projects. We have the library fund and capital funds, but we don't have a new submission for that this fiscal year. There are no new capital projects in the mayor's proposed budget at this point. What would be here would be bonded projects, and there aren't any proposed new bonded projects. We have our enterprise funds. All of our enterprise funds have a charge for service associated with them. Everybody knows about our sanitary sewer fund. It comes on your water bill. Our water quality, which is our new fee that was put in place not too long ago. Our landfill fund, which has the Herbie fee that everyone pays for refuse disposal if you have refuse collection services. The right-of-way program. The extended school program. program or after-school program for kids that Parks manages, Enhanced 911. LexBand is not one that you hear about very often, but it is a small fund that we budget for every year, and the public corporations. Public corporations is a lot less important than it used to be prior to the fact that in the past, we could not issue bonds by the government itself, so we had a public corporation that did that for us, and then we leased the properties from them until they were paid off. Since we now can issue bonds, that's not as big of a factor as it used to be. And the parks additional building permits is situated in our public corporations funds. We have our pension trust funds, which is our city employees pension fund, and our police and firefighters Retirement Fund. We do not currently have any active employees with the City Employees Pension Fund. All of those employees, I believe, are retired. We do have active employees in our Police and Firefighters Retirement Fund. The bulk of our other employees, our non-sworn employees, are all a part of the CERS Pension Fund, and that is managed by the state and not a part of our budget document. We have our internal service funds, which is our medical insurance fund. That's the fund that accounts for our life health dental or health dental and vision care. The government pays in a certain amount for our employees into that fund, and then employees pick up the rest for the total cost of whatever plan they've chosen. And our property and Casualty Claims Fund, which is our self-insurance program for property damage and loss. As I said before, the General Services District Fund is the biggest fund that we have. It provides the bulk of our services, although as we've expanded our water quality and sewer issues, those have also grown. Here's a summary of revenue and appropriations schedule for the upcoming proposed year. I included in this schedule the requests that were submitted. Divisions were asked to submit a continuation budget that kept their operating personnel going at the level it was in 2011. As you can see, when they included their capital requests, the budget came unbalanced by $58 million. Thirty-five of that was the capital requests that were submitted by the divisions. So the challenge for the administration, of course, was to move this $58,000 difference into a positive figure. As you can see on the right there, there are many changes to our revenue accounts that took place, and expenditure accounts, primarily removal of the capital requests, and the recognition of some fund balance coming from 2011 into 2012. $500,000 is recommended to be recognized there. Let's talk about our revenues. We have licenses and permits as a category of revenue. It's 83% of what we collect as a government. The growth rate on that for next year is at 3.1%, so there is positive growth being proposed. Next is our ad valorem taxes, and third are our services categories of revenue. As you can see, licenses and permits is up by $6.7 million, and services is down slightly. The other revenue category is down significantly, and we'll talk about that as we go through the slides here. So as I said, licenses and permits is our largest category. Our top four sources are employee holdings, business returns, insurance, and franchise fees. We usually talk about the top three, but at $18.5 million, franchise fees is a significant portion of what we collect. The top three revenues, when you combine them, are scheduled to grow by 3% for 2012 in the proposed budget. Employee withholdings is levied on all salaries, wages, commissions, for services rendered in Fayette County. It provides 57% of all general services revenue. So over half of the money that we use in the general fund to provide services comes from employee withholdings. And it is, of course, extremely responsive to changes in the economy. It is what comes off of everyone's paycheck. And as jobs go up and down, as salaries stay stagnant or improve, our employee holdings collection responds. We have large numbers of education, government, and health care employees. And when we have an economic downturn, this often helps soften the blow. I pulled the top ten employers for 2010 out of the CAFR. As you can see, we have the University of Kentucky and the Board of Education, two education components, and we have us and several different health care employers as a part of our top ten. And while it makes us more immune to downturns in economy, it doesn't mean we won't experience it. We generally come into one later than the rest of the national economy, and we come back out a little later as well. As you can see, we have had changes before in downturns in the economy. Usually they don't represent negative growth, and they usually only last for about one year before things accelerate, or we take some movement to make things happen. And this downturn is particularly different because it's lasted for longer. If you see the point back in 93, 92, you can see things were, you know, 92 was a little better than 91, but not really. 93 wasn't great either. In 94, 95, we took action for an amnesty program, I believe, in those years. And since it was the first one we ever did, our returns were really quite good, and it made a significant difference for us. We had another problem come about in 2003. In 2004, the council moved to change our employee withholding rate upward from 2 to 2.5%. That was moved back down to 2.25% when the Herbie fee was imposed. In the year that the rate was moved from 2.5% to 2.25%, we actually had positive growth, even though we assumed we'd have negative because of the rate change. The economy started to turn around at the same time that we were changing our rate structure downward. As you can see, the bars on the end, pretty flat for 8, 9, and 10. And those are actual figures, not a projection. Currently, when we look at employee withholdings, our 2011 collections look to be coming in at about 2.5% over 2010. Our budgeted growth rate is 0.6%. It's a lot better than we were budgeting at this point. Our 2012 projection at this point is 3.5% growth. If 2011 actually reaches that 2.5% increase, then the 2012 growth rate drops to 1.7%, which is a much lower growth rate than the 3.5% you see when you look from adopted to proposed. We have business returns, license fees levied on net profits of businesses, professions, and occupations from activities in Fayette County. It accounts for 10% of our general services revenue, much lower percentage rate. We go from 57% for employee withholdings to our next largest category being 10%. It is also responsive to ups and downs in the local economy. As businesses suffer difficulties in selling products, their ability to have profits goes down. Oftentimes when we manage to hold on to our employee withholdings numbers, net profits goes further down because if I'm continuing to hire and continuing to keep my current employees as best I can and not lay them off, then my profits will go down as a result of that. Collections for business returns are up 8.3% for 2010. It was difficult. I could not determine how much of the current growth was amnesty and what was positive economic change. If any, the figures that are in PeopleSoft are rolled together as one, and there wasn't a separation of the two. I think that probably later this afternoon, Bill may be able to clarify for you how much of that is real growth. We have insurance that's at fees on insurance companies for premiums not subject to exemption that are received on risk located in Fayette County. We have a life insurance that's paid. It's only paid on the first year that you take on a life insurance policy. It's 5% for that very first year only. And our other insurance premiums for fire, health, casualty, automobile are also 5%, but they are annually. So we receive those every year. In times of growth, this category generally also does good because everybody renews those automobile policies as they buy new automobiles and as homeowners change houses and things. This is 9% of our general services revenue. They're very subject to year-to-year fluctuations. This was one of the hardest categories when I was in budgeting that we had to estimate because it never seemed to fall where we thought it would. Currently, the collections are 1.6% below 2010. We had budgeted apparently a 10.3% decrease, so the 1.6 is a lot better than what we had planned on. Historically, a positive growth year follows a negative growth year, and next year's were budgeted at 13.3% for this category. And we have franchise fees. Public service companies in Fayette County pay of franchise fees for the use of rights-of-way for placement of their transmission facilities. This is 7% of general fund revenue, general services revenue, and it's budgeted at 5.1% growth for next year at $18.5 million, a difference of $900,000. I'll roll through the remainder of our revenues that don't provide nearly as much operating for the government. We have golf course collections. Included in our 2012 proposal is the closing of Meadowbrook Golf Course. We have parks and recreation programs. It includes closing Berry Hill and Constitution. We have excess fees. Excess fees are budgeted slightly more than 2011. There should be some end-of-term fees that roll into that category. I'm not sure whether the plan is that those will hit before the end of June, and that's why they aren't represented here. Usually the county clerk's end-of-term fees are significant. And we have other. We have district court jail fees, and those have increased by $618,400, and our rent or lease income, which has increased by $269,480. Ad valorem revenue shows a slight increase over the 2011 adopted, but is flat compared to our 2011 amended budget. The 2011 amended budget would reflect property taxes after we have received certification, and the certification number gave a growth rate that doesn't show that you don't see here for 2011. So 2012 is flat compared to that, and that would mean that assessments aren't planned to increase for the coming year. Our other revenue sources are fines, intergovernmental property sales. I think you all probably will be happy to see that there are no property sales included in the 2012 proposed budget. There was a large property sale figure in for 2011 that isn't going to happen. and other financing sources, which are transfers, some administrative transfers for our self-insurance costs. I don't see these transfers included in 2012. It may be that they are included in some other manner for the upcoming year than they have been in the past. So that leads us to our expenditure portion of our budget. As you can see, personnel is 65%. That percentage rate has not changed from 2011 to 2012. Our partner agencies has not changed as well. It's still 6%. Debt service has increased by 1% from 2012 to 2013. Insurance has remained the same at 2%. Operating has increased slightly to 14%. Transfers has gone away, and capital is at zero. There is a small actual amount of capital in the budget, very small, but the percentage doesn't show up because it is so small. The same happens for transfers. It's just so small not that it doesn't show up in a pie chart. So personnel at 65% of the General Services Fund budget is scheduled to decrease by $11.8 million. According to the mayor's submission information, $5.6 million was going to be collective bargaining cost reductions. There is a $1.3 million reduction in overtime for sworn employees. And there's the scheduled abolishment of 164 general fund positions, 27 of which were filled and 137 were vacant. Our partner agencies includes the library, the library being at $13,210,000, the biggest portion of our partner agency budget. We have economic and social service organizations that also receive funding. Partner Agencies is reduced by $373,400 due to 10% reductions to various agencies. The library, of course, receives their funding based on property tax assessments. It is a funding level. It is not actually a portion of the property taxes. Our debt service figure for 2012 is $34,127,796. We have payments for long and short-term debt. For next year, the plan decrease is $311,188. I included in this chart the major contributors to the decrease that you see. We have some new bond issues that are coming into play and some old bond issues that go out. There's a new pension bond proposed in the mayor's budget. There's some new bond payments for 2010 bond issues, or 2010 bond projects. Those are projects that would have been started in 2010 but have yet to actually hit this debt service schedule because we hadn't issued the bonds until later in, I presume, 2011 for them to hit now. The fire equipment notes, bond goes out. We have a refunding of stormwater and our equipment for stars and some parks improvements, bonds. it also goes out for the next fiscal year. Insurance. The insurance that you see in this part of the budget is different from the revenue stream. This is the government's payment to our self-insurance fund for claims for workers' compensation, general liability, property and automobile liability, and physical damage. There is a funding increase of $1 million for 2011 scheduled in the mayor's proposed budget. Operating at $36 million, almost $37 million. This is our day-to-day expenditures to run our government, our office supplies, our fuel, our utilities, our professional services for medical costs, legal, et cetera. I included in the chart to the right a summary of the major impacts that happened in the operating account. As you can see, fuel and repairs is budgeted to increase by $1.1 million for the general fund for next year. Our operating supplies is reduced by $429,000. Repairs and maintenance is also reduced by almost $400,000. Our utilities is up by half a million, and our indirect costs at $468,000. That's $468,000 that the other funds would have paid to general in the past that they won't be paying for the upcoming fiscal year for their indirect costs. Professional service is up by $150,000, and we have various other increases at $58,000. Our transfers, the net transfer increase is $147,147 reduction. And these are transfers that happen from one fund to another. The major impact in transfers for the upcoming fiscal year is that there's no anticipated draw from the economic contingency account planned in this budget. We have an increase in some transfers to the other funds. We have an increase in our road projects, or we have our road projects budget. Some Lexi-Call recoveries, some pension increases for administrative costs. We have a public safety fund transfer that wasn't in there before, I believe, and our park impact fees. And here's the small amount of capital, which is in the general fund budget for next year. There's $213,000. $15,000 of that is the copier lease for your off-copier. $168 is for personal protective equipment for fire, and $30 is for safety equipment for fire. And I believe that those are both bargaining agreement items. Here's our major expenditures by department. As you can see, public safety is our major piece of this pie at 54%. Our debt is next at 12, general services at 9, and partner agencies at 6. And here's the schedule of the expenditures by department for next fiscal year. We have, as you can see on the difference column, the public safety category is the biggest piece of the pie, and they took the biggest reduction in budget from 2011 to 2012 at $10 million. dollars. General services also took a large reduction for the next fiscal year at 2 million and the different divisions within the chief administrative officers budget at 2.8 million. Our debt contingency category that you see together there at 12 million dollars reflects the removal of the economic contingency credit, that $5.8 million that was in this year's budget, and some changes in the other contingency accounts that you will see in your summary booklet as you go through. Okay, I wanted to list for you the various staffing changes that took place. these are just the ones that had changes for next year. As you can see, police took the hardest hit at 35 positions. Community corrections next at 24.9. Fleet at 19.3. Facilities and fleet, I should say. Fire at 16. Parks at 13, et cetera. obviously the bigger, the divisions with the most employees took the bigger impact when it came to changing positions. And that was all I had. I also prepared for you a summary document that's longer. Included in this summary document is a review of all of those departments or divisions with some highlights on what took place in terms of position titles that changed, actual operating changes that took place. I also included descriptions of all the other funds that are in the budget, as well as those funds' summary of revenue and appropriations, so that you could see what was going on in those funds from 2011 to 2012. I included the request and their 2012 proposed, so you could see what they asked for in relation to what actually took place for the next year's budget. Thank you very much, Connie. We have questions. Before we go to the Councilmember questions, I thought perhaps we would, unless there are a lot of burning questions, try to end somewhere around 1230 or 1240 so that Councilmembers can grab a quick bite to eat before the press conference at 1 o'clock and the meeting at 130. So we'll see how this goes. Thank you so much for all your hard work, Connie. You're welcome. And first up is Councilmember Martin. Thank you much, Mayor. Connie, thanks for this great presentation. Just a lot of information, and this is a lot to absorb for all of us. It is. And I appreciate you working hard on that. I am still grappling with, I've heard this 100 times, that the city is $25 million short. And can you put together a detailed summary from Pat and send it to the council of what that shortfall is, both from a revenue standpoint and an expenditure standpoint? because I'm having trouble understanding where the $25 million is. And if you can maybe go through one of your charts and kind of talk to us about it, because as I understand, our revenues are up, are increasing. And you look at the chart from past revenues. I know that our revenues are slowly recovering. They've been flat. Now they're recovering. They may be going to inch up, hopefully. But I know that we've been working hard to cut budget year after year. I mean, this is my third budget. And every single year we've been told it. Now, we're cutting everything by 10 percent and things like that. So I don't understand where the shortfall is because we've been cutting, cutting, cutting. Everything's been stripped to the bone. And yet our revenues have been flat or are now starting to increase. Something is increasing in our expenditure side. And so I know that one of those items is debt service is increasing. but if you would walk us through what it is that's, you know, how are our revenues shrinking and how are our expenditures increasing that creates this $25 million shortfall. I mean, I just don't understand it. And I didn't, the $25 million figure is not mine, but I can tell you that if you look at this summary of revenue and appropriations and you see that there's a $58 million difference between our revenue stream and request and our expense stream and request. $35 million of that would be capital, and they would not necessarily have considered capital in their original cut, if I'm correct. Do you have a laser pointer or something? No. Is this a point? Yes. How does it point? John. Oh, I see. Okay. So when they originally talked about the budget going into mayor's hearings. Yes, sir. Show it to this one. Okay. Okay. I'm trigger happy here. There we go. Okay. When they originally topped, I believe this figure right here was about $269 million on the top for revenues. So they increased it slightly during their mayor's proposed budget process. On the bottom, I don't think that all this capital was a part of that $25 million difference. Am I right about that? Very little of this capital would have been a part. This would have been in there, but probably not a lot more than that. So as you can see, there are $58 million difference between this request of revenue and this request of expense. If you remove the 35, I believe that leaves you like 23, and this was at least a million dollars less when they were going in. So we've got 192 million in personnel. Where is that personnel? Okay, so where is the increase coming from? It's not. There's a decrease. This is one of the things that got reduced in order to make this 271. So the $25 million is really just people's requests and not over? Well, keep in mind that request was to represent a continuation budget. So request was, what do I have to pay for personnel to keep everybody employed and pay whatever new pension rates and health insurance rates, et cetera, that are going to be required? It also would have included any increases that they expected for utilities and fuel and repairs and maintenance on vehicles, things that you can't control as much. So requests would be a continuation budget. What would it cost to keep our doors open if we didn't do anything different from the year before? And that was $58 million difference. When you included capital requests, it was $58 million. Like I said, they would not have had very much of this $35 million of capital. Very little of that would have been in our continuation budget. This continuation is to keep the doors open, keep doing what we're doing. We'll think about capital separately once we've figured out how to pay for what we have right now. Does that help? Well, I guess I would like a more sort of detailed description about what departments are increasing. I mean, I think what I see here in 2010, for example, we had total appropriations of 270. Last year we had 274, and I guess we're going to pull this back to 271. Yes. But other than not increasing our expenditures, I'm not sure where the $25 million shortfall is. What's putting pressure on it? Is it debt service that's putting pressure on it? Is it increased medical expenses that's putting pressure on it? And if so, which departments are driving those increased medical expenses? Is it personnel that's driving that increase? So you'd like to see the difference between these columns? Yeah, I'd like to see what's different from 2011. I guess the assumption was that when we were told that there's a $25 million hole, that of the revenues and expenditures in 2011, we're going to be 25 short of that. And are you saying that's not really the case? No, I think that if you consider that we're looking at how much does it cost to keep our doors open and do what we were doing last year versus what we did last year, I think you'll see a $25 million difference when you exclude capital. Okay, so I want to understand where that difference is. Because what I see is total funds available last year was $274 million. And this year it's right up. We're going to do $271 million. That's not close to $25 million. No. So if you could send us some more information so we can see where that is. I'm trying to understand where the growth is. Where's the shortfall? Where's our revenue coming up short? And what departments are spending? Because my concern is that, number one, our debt service is requiring us to cut partner agency expenditures and cut back in our social programs and cutting back in a lot of other things, and that our personnel costs, including the medical expenses, have increased. And that's also requiring us to lay off employees and things. So I'd like to see where this is growing. Right. And, again, thank you for the great presentation. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Connie. I appreciate this in-depth review. I think all the council members do. It's nice to have somebody here that really has a good knowledge of what's going on. It's very helpful to us. If you would go to probably the second to last page, Expenditures by Department. And I'm just wondering if these numbers are correct. You know, as I was looking at this, it does not appear that the difference column goes with the column. Right. That's what I was saying. When we look at general government, general it should be 748804 is what I would have. And it's got $11,300,000. I don't know where that is coming from because when you do the math. I miss Kay. I had an editor when I did this before. My guess is that I may have sorted without taking the differences into consideration. I will correct that and get you a corrected copy, however. And then I guess if you go down one, two, three, fourth on the law and then on the finance, it has zero change, and it appears that there's going to be more than a zero change Because there's an $873,882, so there's got to be some kind of change, I would think, on those. Yes. And that's all I want to do? Yeah, I will correct that. Okay. Thank you. So you'll bring that back to us or get that to us? I will. I don't have any other council members signed up right now, So I wonder if this might be a time when we can ask the questions that you had of Mr. O'Meara about the real growth versus tax amnesty, the end-of-term fees, and the transfers. Is that fair to ask you, or would you? Okay. Well, this may not be the time, but do you know when the end-of-transfer, the big check from Don Blevins is coming, and is it in this current budget? Can you answer that question? Or did you want to wait until 1.30? Just only because it came up. I was going to address all those at 1.30. Okay, that's fine. That's good. The end-of-service fees are in our FY11 forecast, and that would be the reason they're not in the FY12, because they only happen once every four years. Okay. We can talk about the others at 1.30. And the amnesty amount, we talk about compared to budget, we talk about compared to actual and different percentages depending on what your base is. So I sent an email asking my staff to do it both ways since it's been talked about both ways here. We will look forward to seeing you at 1.30. Thank you. Let's see. Council Member Martin, did you have another question? I did, and I sort of cut off because I didn't want to go over, and I probably want to let an opportunity for other council members. Connie, the council was given questionnaires relating to our priorities for this budget, and I think that was an attempt for the administration to work with the council early on about what our priorities are. Have you seen that list? Yes. And do you have any understanding about how those priorities got incorporated into this budget? Not really. I don't. I don't have the list of what actual things were cut. What I see is by account and not by what it was that change meant. And so it was difficult to go back and see. Other than the fact that police is losing X number of positions, what did that operating cut mean to their general operations, their ongoing services to the community? I don't know the answer to that. And I think one of the things that was very high on the list was repaving dollars, and I didn't know whether you had a feeling for how those priorities made its way into the budget. I can tell you. Let me find my page. And there's a whole bunch of things, and I'll just use that as an example. I guess one of my questions is that perhaps we could have someone send us some information about where I'm seeing council members mouth things at me. The commissioner is the one. I think the commissioner might know that. I understand they're going to be on later today as well. There's no other. The only resurfacing dollars that I see in the budget are what comes in for municipal aid program and for county road aid program. In the past, we had done some bond issues to repay. There's nothing like that in here. It's pure cash for resurfacing. And page 36 of this document shows what MAP and county road aid look like. Commissioner Driscoll might know the answer to your question about the priority list and how that was figured out. I can say paving was on many of the council members' lists. There is $3 million in this budget that would be consistent with prior year. Connie is correct. It's municipal aid funding. It's county road aid funding. And it's coal and mineral tax that Connie referred to hadn't been budgeted in prior years is budgeted in this year. And so we wanted to maintain that. obviously was a priority of the councils and wanted to maintain that level of funding. There are other, in terms of other priorities, public safety. You know, again, when you think about the strengths of those forces, police and fire, they are steady with current operations. What we've done is taken vacancies. So, again, from the perspective of that being a high priority, they're still the most significant piece of the budget. And then there are others that we, some things retain their status in the budget that were high priorities on them. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Vice Mayor, I guess my question is it might be for Council Member Ellinger as chair of the Finance Committee, but, you know, we did kind of go through this process, And I was sort of wondering how we're going to follow up to see what we asked for actually got put in. And so that's why I was asking our budget analyst, because she's got incredible expertise in this, and she's sort of our representative in the budget process. And is there some way that we can sort of follow up with that process to see how it got embodied in the budget? I think that's a good suggestion. and as we said, that was kind of a first attempt, and I think it's going to probably be a better attempt next budget cycle. This was a first go around, and I think the paving obviously was one issue. And then also I think when we asked each council member to give their specific district, and I believe the mayor has left a million dollars in budgeting for the council to kind of divvy up, and I think that might be where we attack some of the district problems would be in that issue there. So I don't know whether, Connie, you're able to, I know that you don't report to all of us, but whether you might be able to spend a little bit of time looking through that list and be able to advise us at some point in the future about kind of where those priorities ended up in at least the mayor's proposed budget. I can, and I'll do my best to do it now that I've got through today. Today's information, that took a while to write. I know you've got a few things to do. I will try to go through and see if I can identify whether it's in there, whether it's not, and how much money is there if I can. Yeah, I mean, it would be interesting for you. When I can't, then I'll get what you're doing. At this point, it is the council's budget, so we take over this process. So there's things that we feel like are not in there. This is our opportunity now to finish the budget process. Yeah, and I think this is a nice sort of next step from your work, Council Member Alliguer, on sort of putting together the effort to find out what our priorities are. So that would give us, I think, some really good information about where those priorities are, and particularly vis-a-vis the last year or two in the budgets, so we can see how those are faring in that. And I think we probably want to include the commissioner in there on when they put the budget together, make sure that our priorities are in there and what's not in there, we can kind of work in there. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think that's a good tie back to the process that we did to go through and make that list. So do you need the list or do you have a copy? Okay, good. Are there other, Council Member? Lane. Thank you. Thank you. Could you pull up the last sheet of your overhead? And this would be very helpful to me if you could get this information for us. You've only shown where we've had reductions, but could you go back to CAFRA and get the actual number of employees for 2010? And can we know the exact number for 2011 that were employed and then actually show the proposed for 2012 so we could see the total impact? In fact, I think the mayor said he cut about 240 jobs total. We can see where all those jobs are coming out because those numbers don't seem to be consistent. I thought there were 204 or 6 or something like that employees that we had openings for but they were not filled. And then we reduced to 26 jobs or 24 jobs. I know that there are another 22 reductions in the Urban Services Fund for refuse collection of personnel, I believe, in addition to the 190. I actually sent you all earlier a list of all the staffing changes by position title that took place amongst all the funds that I believe lists 2010, 2011, the changes that took place, and then 2012 proposed. But I'll get you another copy. All right. Well, if you already have that, could you just resend that? I certainly can. Because somebody missed that. For other council members, it came April 20th in an attachment to an e-mail and has every division and every position, and it was actually very helpful in our public safety link this morning. So thank you for sending me. I found it helpful to me if I can tell who and where. You know, and while I'm thinking about it, if it's not a huge problem, Maybe if you could get the data from the 2009 CAFRA, too, so we could see, like, before your trend line of where we're going. Yes. Okay, thank you. Are there other council members who have questions? No. This is a good sign, maybe. One never knows for sure. I have one question which you mentioned and the commissioner mentioned. And maybe this is for 130. I don't know. Coal and mineral severance expenses are built into the current budget, correct? Revenues and expenses. And can you just tell us about that? Maybe this is, Connie, I don't know if you have more information or if the commissioner would want to address that. Normally it comes up in a different way and comes to the, as I recall, comes to the council with a list. There used to be a committee that would review and then a list would come to council for approval. So it's a little bit different that it got budgeted. It is very different that it got budgeted. So if you could. Commissioner Driscoll, thank you. Just in looking at our process, some of the things, you know, coming new to this government is why wouldn't you include that up front and budget the revenues that you're anticipating for a year? So really it's just doing it sooner rather than later. So, again, it's $100,000 for each source of those funds, so it's just included, as I felt like it should be in terms of the revenues that we anticipate for the year. And so rather than bring the list of proposed expenditures to the council, you've built them into the budget? Well, the expenditure of those funds for paving the list process would be similar in terms of prioritization and the involvement in the past. So are all the coal severance and all the mineral severance then planned for resurfacing? Yes. Is that what you're saying? That is correct. The current revenue. Okay. Or the anticipated revenue for next year. And does that follow the guidelines? I'm sure it does, since you all did it, for use of those funds because they have specific guidelines. Yes, it meets the test. Okay, they meet the test. So that's all resurfacing. Okay. Thank you. I believe coal has to be used for transportation issues, and mineral has a much wider range of things that it can be used for, but transportation would be something you could use that for. Okay. Very good. Actually, when I reviewed what they had, it looked like they were using fund balance money to cover this year's $100,000. So we might want to cover that at our 1 o'clock meeting on the revenue projection for that. Okay. Very good. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Connie. And you'll see those on page 27. They are included in here in their summary of revenue and appropriations. Okay. Council members, any other questions before we adjourn? Okay. Connie, thank you very much. We really appreciate it. And the folks from budgeting and finance who are here, thank you. I have a motion to adjourn with a second by Mr. Farmer. All those in favor? say aye. Anybody opposed? We'll see you at our 1.30 meeting. I think my heart must just be slowing down Among the human beings In their designer jeans Am I the only one who hears the screams? And the strangled cries of lawyers in love