# Budget COW-Links and CMs Recommendations, Revenue Update, Mayor's Late Items - June 7, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 7, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2041 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2041?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-06-07 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,360 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 Committee of the Whole met on June 7, 2011, at 11:00 A.M., with the Vice Mayor presiding. The committee addressed nine agenda items during the session, taking 24 motions and votes. The meeting included one public comment. The committee approved five items: the Revenue Update, the Mayor's Late Items, Council Link Financial Recommendations, Councilmember Recommendations, and Possible Bond Projects. Additionally, the FY 12 Council Budget Schedule was approved. Three items were deferred for later consideration: Resolution 194-2011 regarding Berry Hill & Constitution Pools, Non Budgetary Recommendations, and Other Business. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 7, 2011: **Council Members:** - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Martin - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Lane - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Kay - Council Member Ford - Council Member Henson - Council Member Myers - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Mullis - Council Member McCord **Other Attendees:** - Commissioner Driscoll - Mr. Bill O'Mara - Mr. Ryan Barrow - Paul Schoeniger - Connie Underwood - Chief Bastin - Mr. Jim Combs No council members or attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions All motions during this meeting passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition or abstentions. **Procedural Motion** The Vice Mayor moved to start with a revenue update and work up the agenda, which passed [timestamp: 0:01:40]. **Fund Approvals** The council approved the following fund adjustments: - Urban Services Fund 1115, moved by Council Member Stenner and seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 0:38:55] - Police Federal Confiscated Fund 1131, moved by Council Member Stenner and seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 0:39:27] - Spay and Neuter Fund 1134, moved by Council Member Myers and seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 0:39:59] - Municipal Aid Fund 1136 (including corrections and $3.99998M paving increase), moved by Council Member McCord and seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 0:43:43] - Sanitary Sewer Revenue and Operating Fund 4002 (corrections), moved by Council Member Stenner and seconded by Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 0:44:14] - Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund 4003 (account reclassifications), moved by Council Member Kaye and seconded by Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 0:45:26] - Public Facilities Corporation Fund 4022 (rental income reduction due to property sale), moved by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Henson [timestamp: 0:47:01] - Water Quality Management Fund 4051 (bad debt and personnel corrections), moved by Council Member Stenner and seconded by Council Member Lane [timestamp: 0:57:19] - Landfill Fund 4121 (correcting $200K annual transfer to general fund), moved by Council Member Mullis and seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 0:59:09] - Right-of-Way Fund 4201 (personnel corrections), moved by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 0:59:40] - Extended School Program Fund 4202 (personnel correction), moved by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Myers [timestamp: 0:59:40] - Enhanced 911 Fund 4204 (radio system project and personnel corrections), moved by Council Member Stenner and seconded by Council Member Lane [timestamp: 1:07:49] - Police and Fire Retirement Fund 5003 (personnel correction and revenue increase), moved by Council Member Lane and seconded by Council Member Myers [timestamp: 1:08:20] - Health and Dental Fund 6002 (one-dollar personnel correction), moved by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Myers [timestamp: 1:08:52] **Late Items** The council approved various late items on pages 2 and 3, including items 8, 9, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, and 6, with motions between [timestamp: 1:13:11] and [timestamp: 1:36:44]. **Other Business** Council Member Farmer moved to hear a police presentation and citizen input on Thursday, seconded by Council Member Lane [timestamp: 1:39:59]. Council Member Stinnett moved to adjourn [timestamp: 1:46:06]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included several budget amendments and appropriations affecting multiple funds and departments: **Paving Allocation** An amendment increased paving allocation by $3,999,980 from the Municipal Aid Fund. **Enhanced 911 Fund** An appropriation of $1,000,000 from the Enhanced 911 Fund was approved for police and fire 911 radios, with AK Associates identified as the vendor or recipient. **911 Radio System** Bond proceeds totaling $3,500,000 were reallocated for the 911 radio system. **Landfill Fund Transfer** A correction amendment addressed the annual transfer from the Landfill Fund to the General Fund in the amount of $200,000. **Police and Fire Retirement Fund Corrections** Two separate amendments corrected entries in the Police and Fire Retirement Fund: - A personnel expense correction of $97 - A revenue increase correction of $92 **CIO Administration Budget** An amendment corrected the CIO administration budget by $442,000. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 1:41:34] Mr. Jim Combs, a former council member, addressed the council regarding police funeral escorts. Mr. Combs urged the council to retain police funeral escort services, emphasizing their importance for both public safety and showing respect during funeral processions. He opposed any proposal to shift the cost of these services to families through utility fees. ## Contested Items The June 7, 2011 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members and the public. **Elimination of CIO Office** Council members were divided on whether to eliminate the Chief Information Officer (CIO) office. Council Member Martin strongly opposed the elimination, arguing that the CIO office was essential for managing city systems and supporting transparency initiatives. Other council members supported the move as part of the mayor's fresh start plan. The vote resulted in a split decision among the council. **Water Quality Management Fund Reserve** Council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding whether to build a reserve in the Water Quality Management Fund for future bonding purposes. The debate centered on competing priorities: some members wanted to establish the reserve to support future capital projects, while others expressed concerns that doing so would reduce the fund balance available for personnel expenses while simultaneously limiting capital projects. No clear resolution was documented in the meeting materials. **Police Funeral Escorts** A former council member and citizen testified in favor of retaining police funeral escorts, arguing they serve vital functions for both public safety and as a sign of respect. The speakers opposed a proposal to shift the cost of funeral escorts to families. This item generated community opposition to any changes in the existing police funeral escort program. ## Revenue Update The committee reviewed updated revenue projections for fiscal year 2012. Mr. Bill O'Mara and Commissioner Driscoll led the discussion on this agenda item [timestamp: 00:02:10]. The presentation included adjustments to several revenue categories: * Employee withholdings * Net profits * Insurance premium tax A proposed total revenue figure of $273,967,062 was presented to the committee for consideration. This figure incorporated the various adjustments discussed and was recommended as a preliminary baseline for use in budget amendments. The committee approved the revenue update, accepting the proposed total revenue of $273,967,062 as the preliminary figure for budget planning purposes. ## Mayor's Late Items The committee reviewed and approved multiple late items during this agenda section. [timestamp: 00:33:57] **Items Reviewed** The late items encompassed several special fund allocations and adjustments: - A $3.99998 million paving increase - A $1 million allocation for 911 radios - Various corrections and omissions across special funds **Process and Organization** The items were organized using color-coded categorization and cross-referenced with prior link recommendations to ensure consistency with earlier committee guidance. **Key Participants** Commissioner Driscoll, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Lawless, and Council Member Lane participated in the review and discussion of these items. **Outcome** The committee approved all late items presented during this section. ## Council Link Financial Recommendations The committee discussed and approved several financial recommendations related to Council Link operations. [timestamp: 1:32:41] **Key Speakers** Council Member Martin and Council Member Farmer participated in this discussion. **Recommendations Discussed** The committee considered the following financial recommendations: - Elimination of the CIO (Chief Information Officer) office - Restoration of key staff positions in government communications - Restoration of key staff positions in economic development **Debate and Discussion** The discussion included debate over the necessity of the CIO office for city operations, with committee members weighing the operational needs of the city against budgetary considerations. **Outcome** The financial recommendations were approved by the committee. ## Resolution 194-2011/Berry Hill & Constitution Pools The committee discussed Resolution 194-2011 regarding the costs associated with keeping Constitution and Berry Hill Pools open. [timestamp: 00:00:00] **Discussion Topics** The discussion focused on the financial requirements needed to maintain operations at both pools. Specific cost considerations included: * FICA expenses * Unemployment insurance * Operating expenses **Key Participants** Council Member Gorton, Council Member Kay, and Council Member Ford participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The resolution was not formally voted on during this meeting. Instead, the matter was deferred, with the resolution referenced in the context of broader budget adjustments being considered by the committee. ## Councilmember Recommendations Council members presented individual requests during this agenda item, with discussion centered on funding priorities and program support. **Speakers and Presentations** Council Member Gorton, Council Member Kay, and Council Member Ford each brought forward recommendations for consideration. **Key Requests** The recommendations included requests for funding to support police officers in neighborhoods and youth programs. These items were discussed in the context of late items and link recommendations presented to the council. **Outcome** The council took action on the presented recommendations, with some items approved and others deferred for further consideration. ## Possible Bond Projects The committee reviewed potential bond projects during this agenda item, with Council Member Henson and Council Member Stinnett serving as key speakers [timestamp: 1:05:00]. The discussion centered on two main areas of focus: the 911 radio system and infrastructure improvements. Committee members examined these projects in relation to available funding sources and how they aligned with existing bond proceeds. The outcome of this discussion was approval of the possible bond projects under consideration. ## Non Budgetary Recommendations The committee reviewed non-budgetary items during this agenda item, which included discussion of reorganization of managerial attorneys and internal audit improvements. These matters were considered as part of broader governance reforms. **Key Participants** Council Member Stinnett and Council Member Martin were the primary speakers during this discussion. **Items Discussed** The committee addressed two main non-budgetary topics: - Reorganization of managerial attorneys - Internal audit improvements These items were discussed within the context of broader governance reforms being considered by the committee. **Outcome** The discussion on non-budgetary recommendations was deferred, meaning the committee did not reach a final decision on these items at this meeting and postponed further consideration to a later date. ## Other Business The committee received public input regarding police funeral escorts and discussed scheduling a follow-up meeting to further address the issue. [timestamp: 1:41:34] Mr. Jim Combs and Chief Bastin were the key speakers during this discussion. The committee determined that additional input from police leadership and citizens was needed to fully consider the matter. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, with plans for a subsequent meeting to hear further perspectives on police funeral escorts from both department leadership and members of the public. ## FY 12 Council Budget Schedule The committee discussed the timeline for upcoming budget meetings during this agenda item. [timestamp: 1:35:03] The Vice Mayor led the discussion on the FY 12 Council Budget Schedule, outlining the planned meetings and work sessions needed to complete the budget process. **Meeting Schedule** The committee noted a General Government Committee meeting scheduled for 1:00 PM as part of the budget review process. Additionally, a follow-up session was planned for Thursday to continue work on outstanding budget items and related links. **Outcome** The FY 12 Council Budget Schedule was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to start with revenue update and work up the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Urban Services Fund 1115 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Police Federal Confiscated Fund 1131 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Spay and Neuter Fund 1134 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Municipal Aid Fund 1136 (corrections and $3.99998M paving increase) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Sanitary Sewer Revenue and Operating Fund 4002 (corrections) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund 4003 (account reclassifications) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Public Facilities Corporation Fund 4022 (rental income reduction due to property sale) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Water Quality Management Fund 4051 (bad debt and personnel corrections) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Landfill Fund 4121 (correcting $200K annual transfer to general fund) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Right-of-Way Fund 4201 (personnel corrections) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Extended School Program Fund 4202 (personnel correction) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Enhanced 911 Fund 4204 (radio system project and personnel corrections) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Police and Fire Retirement Fund 5003 (personnel correction and revenue increase) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve Health and Dental Fund 6002 (one-dollar personnel correction) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve page 2 of general fund late items (items 4–11) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to amend original motion to approve only items 8 and 9 (net zero) on page 2 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve items 4 and 5 (expense decreases) on page 2 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve item 11 (net zero) on page 2 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve item 12 (corrections) on page 3 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve item 13 (CIO office funding changes) - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve item 6 (omission correction) on page 2 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to hear police presentation and citizen input on Thursday - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript And, Council Members, just for a little process point, we have three meetings scheduled, one today, one Thursday, and one next Tuesday, for considering amendments to the proposed budget, which, as you know, the budget now belongs to the Council. and what we will do is we'll try to have a rather orderly process. And you have an agenda today that starts with LINCS recommendations. However, I think that we need to start with revenue and have our revenue update and our revenue discussion. And for those of you who have been around a while, you know that we need to have a motion to adopt a revenue number so that we start with that number, and then when we go through and make our proposals for adjustments to the budget, we know what our bottom line is. And then the second item we will address is the mayor's late items, and I wanted to thank Commissioner Driscoll. she will be bringing us sort of a reorganized look at the late items so you'll know which ones council has already passed, which ones were corrections of errors, and those sorts of things. So I believe this would be where Mr. Bill O'Meara gives us a revenue update. And there is a question maybe about the process, Council Member Stinnett. I would go ahead and make the motion then to start with item number seven and work our way up. Thank you. So we can amend our agenda from what it was published. So moved. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Okay. Revenue update, and this is on page 16 and then 36 through 41 of your packet. Welcome, Mr. O'Mara. Thank you. So on, did you say it was page 16? Yes, this is the Revenue Employee Withholdings Net Profit Insurance Occupational License Fee page. Right. We tried our best to look at the four major revenue items as soon as the month was over. And so Thursday night we tried to make sure that those numbers were finalized so that we could have May information to bring to the council for their consideration. And so the schedule on page 16 is the result of that information. We are proposing that based on April and May results that we make increases to two and decreases to one other revenue stream. Occupational license for employee withholdings, we're now predicting to come in at $153 million for FY11. And we're proposing a 2% increase for FY12, which would result in the number on the far right-hand column of $156,060,000. That's an increase of $1,530,000. The net profits, we were seeing negative comparisons for the first eight months of the year. April and May have shown some increases in that. So we are predicting an end-of-year 2011 of $29 million. I would remind you that that includes $1.1 million of one-time amnesty dollars. So we took those dollars out to come up with a base and predicted a 2% growth for 2012, which results in the new proposed net profit number of $28,560,000. That's an increase of $2,160,000. The opposite of those traits seem to be happening in insurance premium tax. We started out the year very strong, and the air has been going out of that category. In addition, the federal government passed a law that was kind of in between the lines. A lot of people didn't realize it. And it's basically an unfunded mandate to the local governments. Excess lines insurance can no longer be assessed a local fee. and so in state legislature at the end of their session, the state passed a law to come up with a statewide rate and to join a consortium of states who have agreed that any excess lines in their home state, they will put in a pool and share with other states. I think the number was about maybe half of the states, a little less than half of the states had joined that consortium. We do not know the actual impact that that will be, but we know that there will be a negative impact from no longer having that on excess lines. That, as well as the trends we're seeing in the other lines, means we're predicting a year-end of 21,800,000. And with a 1% increase over that base, we're talking about 22,018,000. and that's a decrease of $1,212,000 in the insurance lines. Those three together net to a proposed increase in our revenues for FY12 of $2,478,000. So would you mind to state then the, I believe starting on page 36, is the original and proposed revenues. So if the council wanted to look at a total number for approving revenues, it would look at the 271-989-062 number, which is in the budget. Is that correct? Plus the $2.478 million? It is the 271-466-479 number. Now, where is that? It is proposed, Mayor's proposed general fund number, bottom, the very bottom of page. Page 36, fourth column. Okay, 271-489-062. Is that the number you just gave under Mayor's proposed budget? It's page 2 in the Mayor's proposed budget. What? Total appropriations, 271, 466, 479. Do you mind to look at page 36 in the past, please? I'm sorry, that's the total appropriations, so we need it. Revenue is 271, you're right, the 489, 062. Is the current revenue in the proposed budget. And, Council Members, that's on page 36 of your packet, the fourth column from the left, 271-489-062. And then so you would be, you're proposing that we could add the $2.478 million in adjusted or amended revenue. That is correct. So it would be a total of 273,967,062. 273,967,062. Okay. Just to get that on the record. Now, we have council members who have questions. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, I know I had asked you earlier in the month for the revenues to date by the month. And you made a statement. I guess you already have May available. I did not when we spoke. Right. But I'm saying earlier in this presentation you said we were up April and May on revenue. But the April numbers that you sent were down. So I'm trying to figure out how we're getting an extra $2.5 million. Let's talk April. And you had that chart with you by chance? No, I did not. But your request was total revenues from all sources general fund. That's what I furnished. My comments were related only to employee withholding and net profit, the four categories. And that's what I want to get to. And so this is just those categories, but what about total revenue? Is it up compared to last year to date? We haven't closed in all revenues. We closed on these four. So that's the picture I have with May. But I'm still trying to figure out, are we really ahead of the game, or are we really $2.5 million better than where we were last year, this time? I'm projecting 12, and then we looked at the assumption, and that was based on FY11. So that's why the schedule there at the bottom shows, The first column down at the bottom shows that when we put together the mayor's proposed budget, these were the forecasts for these four line items, which resulted in the mayor's proposed budget, which is in this. We now have changed those forecasts for 11, raised at $2.9 million from where we were in March when we built the mayor's proposed budget. So that's what I'm comparing to there. So then we took this new base and applied those assumptions, 2%, 2%, 1%, to come up with these new numbers. And did you want to add, Commissioner, before I go on? This may be helpful. In looking at the current year, which we are getting ready to report to you, but in looking at the current year, the reevaluation given the numbers through May, We are projecting to end the year at a little over 274. However, don't forget that's got the one-time end-of-term settlement and the tax amnesty dollars in that. So we, what I think Mr. O'Mara is, well, I know what he's saying is that we re-evaluated the top four for current year and applied the percentage growth that we had looked at in building the mayor's budget. So this year is going to end better, slightly better. We built the proposing fiscal 12, assuming those percentages. And do you have, you said you don't have total revenue to date? No. You haven't closed the books? No, we have not closed the books for May. And how soon will you have that number? Do you know? Today's the 7th. So it would be probably Friday, Monday. It's supposed to be on the 10th. Okay. Very good. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, so are we going to use any rainy day funds this year? Are we going to break even? Our projections right now, if all the stars align and planets align, says we will not. Okay. And could you help me understand what assumptions we have built into the – revenue assumptions we built into the 2012 budget? For example, I understand we have an assumption, a multimillion-dollar assumption, that we're going to reduce our expenditures on our health care costs. And maybe that's a wrong question for Ryan. That's a Ryan expense side. Right. Because what I'm getting at is where it's sort of a revenue side, but because if we're not really clear exactly on the question. Well, we're trying to gauge how much money we're going to have. And I guess I understand there's assumptions built into the 2012 budget about what revenue we're going to have and maybe what's – is there a built-in – I guess maybe it is expenditure, but is there a built-in savings that hasn't been realized but that makes assumptions that we're going to fix the health care costs? So in terms of revenue, in this conversation you're referring to monies that are paid into the medical fund, such as the employee benefit pool, incremental, they select a hire plan, and the LFEC subsidy in terms of revenue. I think it's a large conversation around the health care, but there is some assumed savings. I would defer to the consultants that are working with HR on the global assumption, but basically it's a $34 million expenditure, and the mayor put in cost of service rates January 1. So that's an expenditure question. Okay, I apologize. Okay, all right, thanks. Bill, I guess one of my concerns about our revenue projections, and you and I talked about our assumptions on the net profits, is, first of all, the economists say that we're looking at perhaps a double dip, that employment is not picking up at the rate they thought it was, and that the projections over the next couple of years are going to be that below even the worst scenarios that we've been looking at, they're going to be even less. And so I'm concerned about trying to make, I guess, assumptions about additional revenue, particularly since we've been short by more than $10 million the last couple of years. Can you – I know that's sort of a general thing, but how is these economists' projection of the next year in employment going to affect what we're doing today about our revenue projections? Well, and thank you for that segue into talking about the assumptions that we used off of the revised 2011 base. I talked about 2 percent, 2 percent, 1 percent, and I think that's what we're talking about. What are the thoughts behind those? And there were predictions of anywhere from 3.5 to 4 percent growth for calendar year 12. That was back in January. Now people are saying that the economic indicators are not showing that. As a matter of fact, there's some contraction going on. There's concern that that was kind of a bubble and there's a double dip. And that's why we stayed with what we felt was a conservative 2 percent growth rate, not three or four, with the occupational license fee on employee withholdings. Our original net profit assumption was at the federal and the state level, There had already been increases in those, and they had not happened here. As a matter of fact, we were 10 percent down last year, and the first part of the year we were 10 percent below that. So we had used a 4 percent growth rate for net profit when we originally put the mayor's proposed budget together. And you know I talked about that. That's correct. Some of that has happened this April. So that's why we're using a 2% growth rate on the FY11 base, because some of that bounce back that we saw at the federal and state level came in this April 15th. We don't think we're going to get another 4% on top of that. So we backed off the projection percentage for net profits, halved it from 4 to 2, saying we got part of it this April, we'll get part of it next April. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Going back to page 16, the insurance premium tax insurance, a variance of $1,200,000. Could you – I didn't quite hear exactly what you were saying about that. Could you explain that again? I can try. I'm not an expert at insurance lines or have an insurance background, so I'm going to give a lame presentation, I guess, for those experts in the field. But we have two things going on. We saw increases year over year in insurance premium tax at the beginning of the year, and that has been slowly going away. In addition to that, we found out that in, I forgot the name, the Dodds something act, pardon me, Frank Dodd Act, in that was buried an exclusion for excess lines insurance, making it against the law in the U.S. to have local occupational or insurance premium tax assessed on excess lines. These are companies that are based outside the home state that come in and write insurance in your state. We don't track what is excess lines from foreign insurance companies versus domestic. So internally, we don't have a predictor for that impact into Fayette County. The state did. The state insurance said you're going to get about a 60 cents less on the dollar than what you have had in the past on this one line, excess lines insurance. At the same time, we're seeing other lines not plussing like they were six months ago. So we have a lower base. We only predicted a 1% increase, and we came up with the new number of 22.018. So this is taxes that individuals pay for insurance, say homeowners or whatever, that is not based in our state. Well, the risk is always here. It's who underwrites that risk that we're talking about. So if we have a local firm that underwrites? Then that is subject. If it's an out-of-state business that is not licensed in Kentucky, well, I don't know if I'm using the right word, but it's not considered a domestic insurance company. That's considered excess lines, and we can't charge the insurance premium tax on that premium. So, but that's the taxes people pay on their homeowners, automobile. Car insurance. Thank you. And the other question I had, there was in the FY11 budget property sales of $4 million plus. Is that still expected to happen, or is that off the table? Well, as I think we've been telling in our updates, that the $4 million has not been in our forecast for FY11 end of year. However, blue sheet of today and is listed as one of the late items further is the proposed sale of another piece of property before Council, and that is scheduled to close the 29th or 30th of June. If that happens, then those revenues would come into the FY11. So that's been blue-sheeted and is one of the late items. Okay, thank you. All right. Council Member Stenet. What a segue. I was going to ask about that. Lo and behold, I don't think we're going to realize that money in this fiscal year, though, are we? We're going to get the check June 3rd, 29th? We are predicting that it's going to close the 29th or 30th, which means the revenue would be in this fiscal year. So how does that impact this fiscal year's revenue stream then? It's part of that 274 when we were predicting 271. 11 we're talking about, FY11. Right, FY11. So we're not taking it from the Rainy Day Fund, but yet I don't see a budget amendment in here to put the money back in the Rainy Day Fund that you all said needed to happen. So why aren't we doing that? Are we talking FY11 or FY4? FY11. Well, if I understand. If we're not touching the money, we put it in. And if I remember, the budget was passed saying that it could be balanced with this predicted draw, but we could only draw it by coming to council. So we haven't ever come to council to draw on. That's different from what was said at a meeting back in, and I got it, believe me, in April. They said we had to do a budget amendment to put the money back because it was already concerned. Oh, I deferred a budgeting amendment. Sorry. We need someone to understand it so we know that if we don't use the rainy day fund, and that money will still be in there for use next year whenever we need to use it. I think to expound upon our previous conversation, structurally balanced budget is constitutionally obligated, the state of Kentucky. So that money, that $5.8 million was budgeted to balance the budget. But like all budgets, actuals differ. And when we look at the pro forma at the end of the year, it differs. And our projection is we won't draw on that. But, and again, I think I previously said that it would be accounting year-end close would be a last resort in terms of drawing that money. It has not been drawn, and the projection is it will not be drawn. But it will go back in the rainy day fund automatically. Well, it's never coming out. It's never coming out of the rainy day. Well, and that's what we all ask. But we were told that we had to put it back in there back in our meeting in April. So as long as you're – I'm just trying to be clear. I don't want to – Yes, and that's my goal, too. So in terms of, to be clear, I think we had said there is a budgetary line for which that money can be drawn. It was authorized by council. The money's never been taken out, nor do the projections show that money be taken out. What I think was referred to is if there is action before council that takes that line item out, and that's what I understood was happening at the time, is that we are going to take that capacity to draw that $5.8 million. We had to offset it with some type of expenditure or additional revenue. Okay. So we're clear that money is still in the rainy day fund. At the end of this fiscal year, it can be utilized $5.8 million in future years. It's still in there. It's still in there. Okay. The $1.7 million, if we do indeed sell the Red Mile property, is including your 274 year-end projection revenue number. So we don't have a true budget deficit. All the cuts we've made and everything, we're going to end the year even. We're not going to need to borrow the parkland money or take money from the urban services fund. All those things now can be thrown out the window because we're going to end the year even, so to speak. Well, I guess we need to parse out some things have to happen. The draw from the public safety fund is $690,000. We didn't bring that material, but $690,000 from the public safety fund. Again, one-time revenues coming in to hit that 274. As Bill said before, we have to get to $2.5 million in year-end center amendment from the clerk and the sheriff. That has to come. The check has not come. And to your point before, we would have to sell the property. We would have to close this fiscal year to do all those things. And I would argue that the fiscal year 11 cuts, we've ratcheted down revenue. We have one-time revenues that at the end of the year, our projection says we're basically going to end the year at a push. But it was a lot of hard work, and we've taken millions of dollars out of the expense line items to achieve that at the end of the year. We've closed that $15 million gap. And I'm guessing, not to me, the point I'm trying to get to is you're asking us to approve a revenue number with a lot of assumptions from last year with non-reoccurring revenues, in addition to our reoccurring revenues maybe slightly up from last year, and we don't have all that information today. We don't have it clear cut. And that's why I asked back in March, what is our plan to end this fiscal year? because what we do this year and what our numbers look like at the end of the year really determine what we're going to do next year as well. And we don't have that, and we're talking about things we don't have before us. I really think we need to hold off on a proven revenue number today until we have what FY11 will really look like and where we're going to borrow money from or what we're waiting on before we start projecting another $2.5 million for this next fiscal year from what was presented back in April. I think it's very important to understand where our $274 came from last year. Okay, I guess just so we can provide that information, I'd ask one point of clarity. In terms of you made the comments that there's one-time revenue projections in 12, I wasn't under that impression. 11, 11. Okay, but I guess what we've evaluated is the big four here, that we do have main numbers that aren't including the one-time revenues except for the caveat you see at the bottom of the slide there. Council Member, we would be glad to, and we had planned on presenting fiscal year 11. It was our push, and I pushed the folks to get the main numbers so that we could give you, present to you the latest information that we had today. So I know timing could be better in terms of having the fiscal year 11 information. We've done that analysis. We can present that as soon as you would like to. You know, we've got to get the rest of the revenue in terms of through the 10th. But we've reevaluated the expenditure side. We have proposed at this point not pursuing those other sources of revenue to balance. But as Ryan said, we have done a lot of work in closing the gap on the expenditure side. So we don't want to lose that. And I certainly appreciate the work your team has done on doing that, but we haven't been communicating that. And you're asking me to approve a budget with expenditures that were $8 million less last year, because you did do a fine job of cutting expenditures from the 281 down to 274, and thank goodness revenues come from wherever will break even. But we have to approve revenues for FY12 as well and expenses. I'm agreeing with you that we will present that information in terms of we wanted to give you this revenue information to consider in light of the entire late item list. Okay, if you'll bring that to us, that would be great. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Commissioner, before you sit down, I wonder, we have another meeting on Thursday and then a final meeting right before ratification on the next Tuesday. When do you think you might have more numbers? Well, again, on the expenditure side projections, we are comfortable. I think it's the remaining, not the big four sources of revenue. It's those nuances of the others, which we don't anticipate changing significantly. So, guys, what do you want to say? We get those on the 10th. That's why I just have some Friday the 10th. Well, just in response to Councilmember Stennett, and I guess the council needs to decide what it would like to do, because as we go through the late items and the link recommendations and the individual recommendations, we need, on the one hand, we ought to have some sort of a revenue number. Otherwise, what we'll do is Tuesday go back and, you know, have to fiddle with that again if we don't have a good revenue number. Council Member Lane. Right. I think it would be appropriate that we could just use the estimate from the, you know, budget and finance people for the purpose of our meeting today, and then when we have the final number, then we can make a tweak at the very end if we had to. That would keep the process moving forward. I think that's a good idea. I do want to just take a minute to thank Commissioner Driscoll and Director of Budgeting Barrow and Paul Schoeniger and Connie Underwood. We have talked. We have met. They complied with the request to get some sort of updated revenue numbers to us. So I appreciate that for today. and they've really worked hard to get this information. So I guess the idea, if we follow Council Member Lane's suggestion, which might be an appropriate one, is that we could have a motion today to accept the line items of revenue in the proposed budget with the amendments brought to us based on your information on page 16. That might be the appropriate motion, and then we can go back and amend the revenue motion if we need to. Or you may have a different motion. Somebody may have a different motion. Mayor Mairi, I was just thinking we could not maybe vote on it today, but just plug the number in for our preliminary evaluation. And then when we get the number, we could then vote on it. If that would be okay. That way we wouldn't have to go back and do amendments and all that. Okay. Council members, what do you think about that? Can you weigh in on that? The number would be 273-967-062 with the proposed budget numbers plus the amended that was brought to us today. Any opinions? If not, I'll take that as an agreement to Council Member Lane's suggestion. So that as we work our way through any amendments, we'll use that $273,967,062 as kind of our level. and then maybe on Tuesday you can bring us any updated numbers that you have based on Council Member Stenet's request for other funds or other revenue sources and any information you have. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can you update the page 36-4s as well after today? that has FY11 adopted, requested, FY12, and mayors proposed that reflect the new revenue numbers? Yes. With accurate percentages based on last year's differences and things like that? Because I assume you want to spend $273 for something so you still have the same fund balance. If you can bring us an updated sheet, would that be okay? Yes. Thank you. Is this the sheet straight out of the budget, though? It doesn't reflect the new revenue. I think that's Connie's sheet, maybe. Okay. Okay. Connie's shaking her head, Jess. Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. I appreciate the revenue information. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Mara, Commissioner. So, Council members, write that number down if you haven't already. as we proceed on with our work for any proposed amendments to the budget. And so working our way up the agenda, the next item we have is the mayor's late items. And the first thing I'd like to do is give terrific thanks to the commissioner. You should have each just received a color-coded late item summary. and this I think will help us be more clear on the categories we're working with. And just to review, we have different categories of late items. Some are items that the council has approved since the mayor proposed his budget and that may not have been in the budget. We have items that are in blue sheet process right now, and we have corrections, which are technical, for the most part, technical corrections of numbers. And then there are in the late item summaries some new items and some items that are covered on alternative item numbers. So the first thing I think, if it's okay with Council, that we will do is start with funds other than the general fund. I think we can knock these out pretty quickly. So if you turn to page 7 in the new color-coded packet, it starts with the Urban Services Fund. And what we'll do is go through these page by page. And, Council Members, if you have a question, it will be a time to ask your question. If not, we can go ahead and, if there's a sense to approve them, approve these special funds today as we go through. How does that sound for a process? Okay. You need the lights out or on? I can't see the lights. Okay. And so page 7, and Commissioner, I don't know if you would like to, are you going to be the point person for questions? This is the Urban Services Fund 1115. Ryan and I, if that's okay, are going to do your points. And changes to the budget now. Can I? Two and 33, yes. Maybe tell you on the gray bars, what's covered on alternative item number, we were thinking about this flowing with general services first down to the other funds. So what that is an attempt to do is cross-reference to items that we thought would have been covered earlier. So just so that everybody's clear, the gray, if you will look at your number, page 7, the first item, number 32, relates to item 7. So the gray bar means that it relates to an earlier and or later item on the list. So let me ask, is there someone who can keep track of, as we go through this, on the big list, number 7, is somebody going to keep track of checking those off or that we've dealt with them? We will be. Okay. So you can kind of at the end of this discussion give us a tally? Okay. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. And then those that are not colored are corrections to the budget. They're either corrections or omissions as we went through the review process that were identified to us or we identified them. Okay, so the omissions are not new items, but they're items that explain the difference between. On number 33, the first white block under detail, there was a position that was inadvertently admitted when we built the personnel model from the mayor's proposed budget. So we are correcting that, asking your consideration of putting that position in the appropriate account stream. Okay, so it's something that was already approved. Or you're asking for a new position. No, it should have been in the mayor's proposed budget as a correction. It was inadvertently admitted when we built the personnel model. Okay. So, yes, it should be there. Okay. It is there. Are there any questions about this page? Yeah, this whole page is corrections, by the way. Yes. I mean, I think just from my long-term perspective, corrections are an easy thing to do. Council Member. I make a motion to approve Fund 1115. Second. Thank you. Is there any discussion? If not, those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay. We'll move on to page 8. And this is Police Federal Confiscated Fund 1131. Do I hear a motion? Second. Is there discussion? This is all related to police over time, and it's actually a decrease. No discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Page 9, Spay and Neuter Fund 1134. Motion by Myers. Second by Ellinger to approve. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Page 10. Now, green means a new item for consideration. So it might be that you all decide this will be held for later, if that's what you choose to do. This is the Municipal Aid Fund 1136, and the first item is corrections to personnel corrections of $20. It's a rounding. And the second item is a new item to increase paving allocation by $3.999980 million. I have a question. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to say how much I appreciate taking this suggestion of this is something Council Member Stenner had brought forward and Council Member Farmer, and I'm very glad that we've decided to do this, so I'm in favor of it, and I'd make a motion to approve this fund. Okay. We have a motion to approve both items, and you see the fund balance is $4 million, so the money is in there. Any discussion? Council Member Stenner. I do. Mr. Barrow, you were gracious enough to provide me with the accounting, and you did 100%, just so my colleagues, I don't think everyone got the email, verify there was a $4 million fund balance in the MAP money. Sir. Okay, so it's definitely there, and it wasn't for any road projects or anything. I don't want to wake up in six months and say, oh, that was for Clay's Mill. Sorry, Jay. I mean, I used Clay's Mill, too, so I was cognizant of that. I guess basically we're doing a little bit of nuance of timing here. You know, this is one you could argue is not really a new item because it would have been in had this information been available in April. Like similar to what council just did, other funds don't necessarily get as much attention. It's a smaller fund. So we had a lot of initial conversation with engineering, additional conversation with accounting to get to this. So you can view it as new or something the mayor would have had in originally, and also it's something council has expressed interest in. We did the same thing last year. If you remember the last week of the budget, we took the map fund balance and put it to the roads. So thank you, and thank you all for bringing that. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is an excellent motion, and certainly it impacts the link report that we had made at the time, but we'll change it positively, but very much in favor of this. Thank you. Councilmember Martin, excuse me. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just want to add that I support this as well, but these are state funds for folks both in the city but also at home so that these are not just extra money we have sitting around. These are state funds that have to be used for a specific purpose. And do you mind enlightening us? I was going to say that, elaborate on that. These are municipal aid funds for road and street improvements. They are specifically designated for those types of expenditures. So it's not like we can take these and hire people with them. That is correct. These are road funds. To be spent on road and street improvements. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Is there any other discussion on the motion to approve municipal aid fund? All those? We have a motion, yes. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, thank you very much. Page 11 starts the sanitary sewer. This is the Sanitary Sewer Revenue and Operating Fund 4002. And as you can see, these are all corrections, omissions. These are all personnel corrections. So do I hear a motion? Second. So we had Council Member Stennett and Council Member Lawless seconded. Is there discussion on this? And we do have the motion to approve. And so if there's no discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. And then page 12 is the Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund 4003. and this is account reclassifications. Do you want to, in water quality, is that correct? There's no fund balance showing. So do you want to talk a little bit about this? Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund is, remember we have 4002, 4003, 4-0-0-2 is where all the cash resides, and 4-0-0-3 is for construction purposes. So basically it's a net zero fund balance, and 4-0-0-2 funds the projects that are in that construction account. Okay. Good. Any motions on this? So moved. Council Member Kaye moves to approve. Do I hear a second? Lawless seconds. Is there discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Page 13 is Public Facilities Corporation Fund 4022. Madam Vice Mayor, if I could just provide some clarification. If we had handled this, I'm sorry, in order, if you refer back to page 5, there's an item that speaks to this issue, and it's blue. blue meaning blue sheeted or in process, that would color coordinate. So it's gray on this section because it refers back to that item. But this refers to the piece of property that we referred to when we were talking about the revenue in current year outlook. Outlook, that piece of property, once that asset is sold, we will no longer realize rent revenue from that property. So once we determined that sale was moving forward, we needed to adjust the next year's budget for reduction in that rental income. So that's what this item is. Currently, the rental income is shown in the proposed budget. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Do I hear a motion? Move to approve. Ellinger moved. Henson seconded. Is there discussion or questions on this item? Okay. If not, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. And moving right along to page 14, we get into water quality. Management Fund 4051. And you see the fund balance at the upper right. And these are bad debt and personnel corrections. Any motion to discuss? We have a question from Council Member Stennett. On the water quality management fee, There was zero money in the budget for capital construction projects. And I think last year it was $200,000 or $300,000, and I was led to believe it was going to be corrected in this upcoming budget. Does anybody know anything about that correction? Because it's zero right now. If we approve this, we have zero money for stormwater capital projects in this fund. I thought budgeting was aware of it. You may not have been. I may not be remembering the exact conversation, but basically we looked at each of these funds on sustainability revenue-economic expenditures, and I need to reference it in the document, but I believe the revenues didn't support additional expenditures. It balanced. This additional fund balance, as I think the fund was originally designed, was the fund needed to operate on a surplus for a period of time to be able to then access the capital markets via bonds to do those projects you're referring to. Right. But last year, and those members of the Stormwater Oversight Committee, we had moved forward to proceed with some projects while we're trying to build up that reserve and not just sit here and not do anything for the next two years. So we had $300,000 in there for capital, small capital projects, which we have several on the list, and the budget for it is zero this year. And I'm just trying to – so you're saying that wasn't an oversight. It was purposely – it was Fund 92241 underneath it. Yeah, I think now we're in terms of the policy decisions. Do you spend your cast or do you show a proven track record and build it up and then be able to issue bonds? I mean, that's just – that's a policy decision. Okay, so that was an okay item from your end. If I'm recalling the conversation or in the – again, we have 100-some funds, but I believe that to be true. And I'll bring that later today or to the full council, those pages to reflect, and we can make that policy decision. I just want to make sure it wasn't an error in the budget, and there should have been money in that account because there is a zero in that account in the budget. And I believe that the individuals submitted various projects for that, but it was a policy decision that we have revenue equal expenditures. And vice versa, we can have a debate. No, that's okay. I guess I was going to ask about Council Member Stennett's question. I know the fund is supposed to gain a fund balance before we can actually go start bonding out of it. So were the projects that you were referring to, Council Member Stennett, from a bond that we've already sold from the general fund? or? These were our small capital projects that we did for $40,000, $50,000 different things. And my concern, honestly, is if you look at our beginning fund amounts of $1.7 million, we're putting most of that towards personnel. And I know the taxpayers didn't want this fund to go towards all administration. They still wanted to see, and what we've been selling to the public, that even while we're trying to build up our revenue bond capability, we still want to spend some money and get some things done over the next year or two years. And so that's my concern, is We're reducing the fund balance, but it's all going towards personnel. Is there anyone here from Water Quality who might want to add any detail? I have found the reference page 422 in your budget book. Basically, the fund is generating $11.5 million, and as budgeted, $11.4 million is to be expensed, with the caveat of bad debt. The bad debt is a very soft number. So basically, I would say revenues equal expenditures as is. There wasn't additional money on an annual basis to fund capital. I'm getting a nod of the head from Brad. I'm sorry, from who? From Brad Stone. Oh, thank you. From Mr. Stone. Okay. Council Member Stennett, does that? Yeah, I'll bring it up again because I think it's something we need to make a policy decision on, especially with this fund and it being a new fund and people wanting to see some further progress with our stormwater program. Okay. Very good. Are there other questions about this page? Much. Council Member Lane. Thank you. And if you have questions, just log in. I just wanted to reiterate, I think it's important that we build up a cash reserve in this account because our ability to get future bonds is going to be based on how much cash we have in reserve. Or would there be something wrong with budgeting a line item for reserve, have a line item in the budget for that? General rule, I'm in favor of building up cash balances. And we actually, the Council did that in the general fund. They did an economic contingency fund. So on an annual basis, you could budget additional reserves. Now, as I said, revenues, as budgeted, revenues more or less equal expenditures this year. So there's not additional cash. to fund a reserve or to fund additional capital projects on an annual basis. You could draw out of previous fund balance years. Okay. Well, I was under the impression this was a separate fund because it has dedicated revenue, and we would put the bond out of this fund, whereas the rainy day fund account we have is really for the general fund. So I'm thinking we need like a, no pun intended here, a rainy day fund for the water fund. I apologize. I didn't fully develop my concept. But I said the general fund has that, a budgeted to more or less savings. You can do that same process for any other fund such as it is. Would it be possible that we could get a recommendation as to how much money we should have in reserve in this account, and then maybe we could put a line item in to budget for that, to build it up over a 24- or 36-month period so we'd have enough money that we could effectively start bonding out of this for the new construction that would be applicable? And just the very quick answer to that is it really depends on the long-term capital needs, but there's two pieces. There's revenue. You have to more or less have on a net income basis, you have to have one and a half times what your debt service payment is. Debt service payment is $100. We need to show revenue over expenditures of $150, basically. We do not show that on a budgetary basis in this fund. and then three years of revenue performing over expenses along with maybe at least a year of a debt service payment. So it's a multivariable formula to do that. But again, the biggest thing is the revenue over expenditure is more or less being balanced in this fund on a budgetary basis. Mr. O'Mara. If I could add a comment. I believe what's really missing here was the original model had $12 million worth of revenue, and I think that's what we're missing right now. It came in at $11.5 million, $11,500. So we're kind of missing that extra $500,000 that in the original model when we projected this fund and the rate, it was predicted to bring in $12 million. Instead, it's bringing in $11.5 million. Are there other questions? Well, does that mean you're recommending we should have a budget cut, cut some expenses so that the surplus funds that would be available would be increased? Is that a thought you're having? I guess I wasn't going to propose that. No, I was trying to explain why you thought you'd have money to spend as you go, and with the budget, it's not developed that. Our revenue forecast didn't meet as we thought. But if you do want to reconsider that the size of the balloon is 11.5 and how are we going to get to the point where we can support bonding, you can't spend 11.5 every year. Right. Right. That's why I think a recommendation from our financial brain trust over there would be good. If you could come back with a recommendation about how we should rebudget this or put money in a line item for a reserve, I think that would be very helpful to us in evaluating this. That's all I have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And it is interesting, Mr. O'Mara, that the bad debt is $350,000, which is a good chunk. Yes, we are budgeting 4% bad debt. That's not bad. As far as percentages, it is higher than what we have grown accustomed to. Okay. Are there other questions about the motion or comments? Pardon me? Oh, is there a motion on this page? Not yet, or do you want to hold off? Kevin? Excuse me, Council Member Stunit. Stunit moves and blue seconds to approve. Is there more discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We'll look forward to the further information on that one. Page 15 is the Landfill Fund, 4121. And I would like Commissioner Driscoll to, some of us know about this $200,000, to explain what that is because that would transfer to the general fund, I believe. Yes, and again, it relates to an earlier item as why it's gray-shaded. But as I understand the original contract with Republic, there was a, for lack of a better term, bonus payment, sign-on payment of a million dollars. As we work through the mechanism on how to recognize that within the city's financials, It was determined that $200,000 would be recognized each year over the five-year contract because there was a clause that if the contract was canceled that we would have to pay back those dollars to Republic. So we have historically, I believe this is the seventh year, it's the second year of the renewal of this contract, historically each year transferred $200,000 to the general fund. We omitted that in the original budget. So this is following past practice and making this correction. Are there any motions on this page? Second. Mullis moved. Ellinger seconded. Is there any question on the motion to approve? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Page 16 is the Right-of-Way Fund 4201, and Ellinger moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Lawless seconded approval. These are all personnel items. Is there any question or discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Page 17 is the Extended School Program Fund 4202, Personnel Corruption. Ellinger moved. Myers seconded to approve. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Page 18 has a new item on it. This is the Enhanced 911 Fund 4204. and there is a correction, the fund balance, beginning fund balance. The new item is the $1 million for the police and fire 911 radios, and then there is the personnel corrections. Council Member Lawless. And if you have questions, okay, please sign in. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is also on page 5, I believe. Thank you. authorized to practice in this state. I believe it's AK Associates. Do you know anything about that? I do not. Is there anybody that can... Commissioner Mason, do you know anything about that? CAO Maloney. Related to radios, that's a whole different component with E911 about some support equipment. So there was a request to do something with their equipment. I just want to make sure that we're... We'll get with Brian Mark and Parchet and look up to see if that's true. Okay. I appreciate it. I just want to make sure we don't get in the... Because I think that... Is that Mr. Lucas back there? I'm sorry, I can't see very well. I'm sorry, I didn't hear the whole question on my way down. It's my understanding that the contractor who's been doing something with Ural's equipment is not authorized to do business in the state of Kentucky? Yeah, you're referring to AK Associates. They did not file their annual report in $15 that is required with the Secretary of State. That's all been resolved, and they are in good standing, according to the documents at the Secretary of State's office. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting in a pickle with that. I understand. and they are in good standing at this time. Council Member Stenet. I guess the fund balance number at the beginning, is that what the projected fund balance will be at end of FY11? And so some of these could be plus or minus some dollars. Is that correct? That is a projected fund. Same as we were talking about stormwater, the water quality fee. That was just the projected year in. And how do we get an extra million dollars in this fund? Is this from the fees from the cell phones, et cetera? It's from the landlines as well as the cell lines. Yes, it is a balance in the fund. And this project is the radios that we heard about our last meeting two weeks ago. This will go towards the $5 million? Yes, it's $5.5. Actually, the note is missing a million in this 51, but it's $5.5 million that we, as a result of the information that was brought to us and a result of identifying additional revenue. There were lots of issues that the mayor would have liked to address in his budget. There were two that came to the top of the list, the radio system as well as garages, and so we've asked your consideration to address those. This, however, the E911, they're very specific criteria about what this can be used for, And we have determined that this money can go towards some of the infrastructure, and it's, again, very specific by state law. But the total project, the total phase one that we're proposing in this budget is $5.5 million, a million of which would come from E911 receipts. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question about the radios. Is this the, maybe David Lucas? Is this the, I can't remember the exact name of them, the megahertz? 100 megahertz. Is it 1,200? 800. This is, that was brought up in the link, correct? That is correct. And what's the total amount? The total amount at this time over three years is around $18.5 million. We broke it up into three fiscal years, and as she said, $5.5 this fiscal year. A million of it we have identified from the 911 funds. And that money, as you know, can only be spent on specific things. So we rolled over, and because we haven't exceeded our budget for several years, we've been collecting the money in anticipation of a new center, which we didn't get. We've put off some things, and this is what the money has been saved for. Where are you going to get the rest of the money? In this late item list, first of all, let me thank the folks, David and Police and Fire, for working through. So what we did is take the project, break it down into components, cash flow that over when we would need dollars in order to complete this project over the 18-month period of time. And we were able to determine that over the next year that we would need approximately $5.5 million. We still have, obviously, RFPs and that kind of process to go through. So an estimate is $5.5. So we said, where can we get those dollars? We identified what piece could be funded, what components could be funded with E911. So we're requesting to use the balance of that. So that's $1 million. $1 million of the increased revenue estimate would go towards this project. And then we were suggesting on the capital page additional reallocation of bond proceeds of $3.5 million. Which was? Show prop. And is that allowable? Since that money was approved for the show prop? We actually have done our due diligence in working with our bond council, and there is flexibility in those bond proceeds to utilize this money towards this project. I was approached recently about that money being used for something else, and no one mentioned that to me whatsoever. Okay. Thank you. Is there any other question about this page? Do we have any motions? Okay, Stenet moves and Lane seconds to approve the page, including the radios. One million. Any more discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that passes. Page 19 is the Police and Fire Retirement Fund. $5003 with some interesting numbers. A $5 fund balance. Personnel correction of $97 and revenue increase of $92. Lane moves. Myers seconds. Is there any question on this page? Discussion? Discussion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. And the last special fund is Health and Dental Fund 6002. And we're getting down to the last dollar here. Ellinger moves. Myers seconds. Any questions for this dollar? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? No. We have one no. I'm sorry. I'll amend that. Okay. Council members, that finishes the special funds. And now, Commissioner, as we work through the late items, has someone checked off all those that we just took care of? Did somebody keep track? Elizabeth, were you the tally person? Okay. So the general fund late item starts on page 2. Right next to it. We've approved pages 7 through 20. And again, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Vice Mayor, but there should be a related item would be in that second column. So those are all approved? Well, some of them are. Some of them are within this first list. Well, the related. None of those are in that first list. I thought the first one was, but it's not. So they've all been taken care of. Okay. All right. So, Council Members? Yes, Council Member Stenet. I will ask, I don't know who from our staff is going to be calculating these, but some of these items that is in the mayor's proposed late items are things that the links brought out as well. So I don't want to, because once we start into the links, we're going to have mixed matching numbers. So, Connie, are you keeping track of all this? Okay. I just want to know if somebody is, because all this will overlap our links discussions. Well, let me ask the council, we could, if you would like to look back at the cover page, the color coded, we could do omissions, blue sheet, council approved, alternate item, and leave the new items for later if you want. Well, I think some of the blue sheets are even new. Even though they've been blue sheeted, we haven't fully vetted them amongst the council during the budget process. I mean, the law restructuring, for instance, even though it's on the docket for the pre-org of government, we haven't vetted that here as a group. And it wasn't on our council link report out. So what would be your pleasure on this? We can do them by categories if you want. Else member Farmer? I don't think it would muddy the discussion if we just took the, I mean, we're into the weeds here. It's going to take some time. We may just go through these kind of page by page again, and if they lead to certain discussions, we can dovetail off to it. But, I mean, that gives us some order to the process. just as a suggestion. New, old, or otherwise. All right. And something else that might just be helpful, for example, if you look at number eight on the first page, that's a net zero change. So we try to group that within the same box to make it more clear. Okay. If there's no other comment, Council Member Martin has a comment. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One thing we might do is because there's going to be some degree of overlap with individual suggestions is to go through the late changes, but individual council members sort of chime in when it affects one of their individual recommendations. Because I think it probably should be looked at at the same time because it's probably the same issue. Does that sound reasonable, folks? Just throw that out. I'm sure people will chime in, too. Thank you. Okay. Let's start with page two, and remember the green represents new items and blue is blue sheet. They're in blue sheet process. So page one is, is there any question? Council Member Farmer. I would move approval of page two, which is items four through 11, as submitted. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Council Member Stenet seconded to move approval. Now, as you look down through there, Council Members, do you have questions? And, Council Member Farmer, are you still on the list, or is that old? Okay. Council Member Kay. Yes, I have a question about number 11. I'm not exactly sure how this works since I'm new to the process, but in the links that I chaired, we reallocated those funds in a different way. It sounds like you're putting them back into the, you're recapturing those in a general way. Is that correct? That would be correct. And so the recommendation that we had would not then be, would be affected by this reallocation. Is that it? So we are correcting what had been included, what shouldn't have, and the dollars that you expended, that you captured and expended, would need, well, you'd make a choice to continue to put those in and make other adjustments or make adjustments to something else that was remaining in the budget. In other words, if I can interpret, if I understand you, this would put the Avon Golf Course money back in. This takes it out. Take it out of the budget because it was in the proposed budget. But it says nothing about how to expend it. The council would say how to expend it as they go through either green items, blue items, or links or individual. Actually, this late item list on the general services, if you go to the bottom line, you will see that we've incorporated that into our totals. So, again, anything that your link added that is still the will of the council to include, if everything else on this late list is included, would be an additional amount to balance. And you and I had this conversation. If Council approves the entire late item list, and you correct me if I say this wrong, then all the money is spent for the revenue, pretty much. There is an ending fund balance on page 5 in general services of a little over half a million dollars. It was approximately that with the budget submission. I think it's changed nine or so thousand dollars with these adjustments. That is a beginning place for us. We obviously, at the beginning of a year, like to have a balance there for cash flow and starting July 1, but there is a balance. We've not expended to zero. Is that just clear as mud? We did not spend all the general fund money. We left a balance of 531-129, which is on page 5. Did you have another question, Council Member K? I guess I'm still trying to figure out practically what the implications are. If we approve this, that means that those funds are allocated in other ways than the way in which the link allocated them. If you approve this, and there's a proposed expenditure in the link that you want to, as a body, include in the budget, there are some, you either reduce expenditures somewhere else, or you expend from this fund balance. Okay, so not to oversimplify, but right now this is really just a bookkeeping question. I mean, the money is going to come or go. It doesn't really affect the final decision about allocation of funds that the council decides on. The final decision comes in when you, if you get to a point where you're expending more than the revenue, then it's not a bookkeeping, it's a issue. Right. Okay, thank you. And just if I could go back to Council Member Stenitz, I believe you asked the question, who's keeping track? And I think also Connie Underwood and Paul Schoeniger are working on that for us, too. Council Member Lawless. To follow up, I noticed, say, on page 5, number 26 and 27, Those were things that we recommended be funded out of that money that was from Avon, part of it. 27. No. Okay. Thank you. So, Council Members, do you want to hear an explanation of this page to the corrections? Can you explain the difference between a correction and an omission for us? Because some of these are classified as omissions. Yes. The correction would be, an example of that would be number four, where we're correcting the amount. The amount was in error. An omission would be number ten. As we went through our process and looking at reduction plans, et cetera, we, again, inadvertently omitted the monies that are in for employee immunizations. So that corrections and omissions to us is similar. They're, you know, difficult to parse sometimes. But these are all corrections or omissions. Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor, it may be that we want to look at this page a little bit differently. We may want to go through and approve all the expense decrease items, which puts money back to the bottom line. and then we might go through and debate individually the expense increase items to see if we want to sanction them in the framework of at least this page or not. And it may flow easier if we just go through and do all of the expense decreases that give us more funds to work with, which would entail withdrawing or changing my original motion. But we need to get in a position where we can, I think, know what money we've got to do with before we start doing it. May I offer just a further suggestion to that? With the items that are net zero, that are just moving money from category to category, if we could maybe not include those in that approach because those are net zero. Again, an example would be eight and nine. Those are both good suggestions. Council Member Lane? Yes, ma'am. You know, one of the problems we're having is that, of course, we just, I just got my copy of this late change summary just a little while ago. Maybe they've been out prior to that. They just went out Thursday in the packet. I'm sorry. Well, I didn't get a copy of this particular document. So that's an issue of not getting the information. But that's not really the point I wanted to make. I believe that what might be appropriate is to have our budget analyst take the late change summary that we have here and check it against what all the links recommendations were so that we could sort of compare what links recommended versus what's on the late summary that we have here and see if we are in a total agreement, if we wanted to adjust something somewhere. And that way we could have the benefit of our length input as well as the recommendation. The only thing today that came different is the color coding, just so everybody's clear about that. Well, let's hear from two more council members, and then we might work through this with the net zero items. That might be a way to attend to some of these. So, Council Member Lawless. I agree 100% with Council Member Lane. It seems that reconciling what the links, because like number 11, our links recommended uses for that money. So if we could do the net zero and then have Ms. Underwood or somebody reconcile it with the link recommendations, that would probably save us a lot of time. Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor, initially I would like to amend my motion just to approve items number 8 and number 9 on page 2, which are both revenue neutral from the presentation here. Does the seconder, who was the seconder on that? Okay. So we have a motion to amend the original to approve 8 and 9. Any discussion on amending? On the amendment? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So then the motion on the table is simply to approve 8 and 9. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Now, there are some on this page that are pure, you know, the expense decreases. Are those something you wish to attend to, or do you want to work our way through Council Member Stenet? I would move approval number four and five. Those are expense decreases. So we have a motion to approve four and five. Would you consider it? Sorry. Does anyone wish to speak to the? Vice Mayor. Council Member Martin. Would you consider a friendly member to add 11? Because that's all expenditure. I thought, I'm sorry. Council Member Kaye. I can. I thought we were trying to do the easy things first and not address those issues that have implications related to the budget. You're correct. You're correct. Yeah. So the motion on the table, we never did have a second for your friendly amendment, I don't think. And Connie's come to the mic. The motion on the floor is to approve four and five. I just wanted to point out that I believe five is a council link item as well. On this page, 5 and 11 would both be a Council Link item. As a recommendation. Okay. 5 is a Council Link recommendation. And the Commonwealth Attorney unilaterally reduced his budget, so that's not an item in contention. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to this motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So on this first page, we've approved 4, 5, 8, and 9. Did someone say 7? We did not approve 7. Yes, you did by virtue of it being related. I thought we were not going. Oh, okay. So the person who kept track of this needs to. Thank you. Will you let us know each page? I will. The ones that have that additional item number are approved. Okay. Okay. Very good. Thank you. We approved seven when we went and did the special funds, correct? Correct. Yeah, that is correct. Okay. I think we're good. I don't think we need another motion on that. So we still have a few that will come after we go through our easy ones. Do you want to go on to page 3 then? And just to recap, on page 2 we have 6, 10, and 11 that are outstanding. Okay, page 3. Now, one of the things on this page you will notice is the Net Zero, the Downtown Development Authority, Commerce Lexington, and Downtown Lexington Corp. Which, Madam Vice Mayor, were also links, recommendations. Are there any motions on this page? Move approval. Of the whole page? Number 12. Council Member Lane moves approval of 12. And did I hear a second over here? Council Member Farmer. So three of those are not net zero, or the top three, Carnegie Center, Explorium, Explorium and Downtown Arts Center, but they were omission corrections. And if you wish to speak, please log in. Council Member Ford. I was your vice mayor. Thank you. Oh, okay. Any questions? Council Member Stenet. Okay, that's old. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Are the first three items in 12 a part of the net zero in process? It doesn't look like they are. They are not, but they are all corrections. Do you want to explain why those are corrections, Commissioner? It might be helpful. So the Carnegie Library, there was some discussion about an agreement that we had with the Carnegie Library. It was separate and apart from the utilities, so we inadvertently deleted that, thinking it was the piece that was the agreement. So that's Carnegie. The Explorium is, again, just a small correction to the amount that should have been funding for the Explorium. And the Downtown Arts Center was a mistake. We have inadvertently omitted it. Explain what that is, please. I might be able to help out the Vice Mayor if you want me to. Do you mind to say what that 91,310 does, what that is? I don't have all. I mean, it's a contract with them, but in terms of programmatic. I guess in terms of the correction, it's a partner agency. The global directive came to cut partner agencies 10%. This is the, there's an actual management agreement associated with this. With the actual downtown arts facility, so it's contractually obligated. Okay, thank you. I don't know if the full amount is. Thank you. That's very helpful. I'm sorry. Council members, any questions? Can you please log in if you have a question? That way I can keep track. I think I'm still on there. Council Member Blues? So the motion includes the first three items, the corrections? His motion does include the first three items. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Or discussion? Okay, the motion is to approve all of number 12 on page 3. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Is there any motion to come forward about 13? I'll move on 13. That was on our links committee. I'm sorry. Did you have a comment? Yes, ma'am. The $442,000 was a remainder budget in the CIO administration budget, And we recommended not funding that, which is $442,000 credit. These other areas, movement of funds to restructuring change for computer services, we did not specifically approve those two items. Okay. Council Member Farmer? So there's no motion at this point? There's no motion at this point. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, the 35. Let me stand corrected there. I'm sorry. We did approve those. I misinterpreted what that meant. That did. Those funding was approved by the LINCS. The LINCS. But there's no motion on the floor right now. Is that what you mean? Well, I was trying to get to it. Yes. If with that further clarification, does number 13 in its three parts reflect the LINCS report? The 50,000 does not, just for further clarification. The 35 and the reduction is in the links. Council Member Farmer, did you have other questions? I was going to see what the $50,000 was for and see if we could tender a motion on this potentially. The $50,000 is for various people's soft licensing that we have to pay. Lovely. Lovely. Move approval of number 13. Second. So Farmer moves approval. Ellinger seconds. And if you can, can you get me back my discussion? There it is. Screen. Okay. Discussion. Council Member Farmer, you're still on. Are you finished? Okay. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I am not going to support the elimination of the CIO office. We run enormously complicated computer systems here at the city, and they manage our assets, our property, our payroll, all kinds of things. And one of the tenets of the mayor's fresh start plan was to have a more open and transparent government and to use technology to help do that by sort of gutting the head of our computer services. I'm very concerned that we are going to lose track of all the pieces. I think we've made a lot of progress over the last number of years in being able to account for how much money we have And, gosh, we're closing our books every month, which is an extraordinary thing for city government. And we've made just great strides. So I would like to keep the CIO office. I think it's important to have someone who's running the show and who's offering vision about how we can improve both the operations of the cities but also the lives of our citizens. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Is there any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Okay, we have one nay, and that is approved. And, Council Members, just for planning purposes, there's a 1 o'clock General Government Committee meeting, and we want to have a presentation by police on the further information that various council members asked for, and they're here for that. Yes, that came through by email to hear that today, even though we won't get to the links work today. It has to do with the links. So, pardon me? We are doing good work, yes. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would ask the Council's consideration to go back to page two. And if we could consider the item number six, the omission in social services. And if there's any information that the Commissioner of Social Service and Finance can provide for us, but I think that omission is very important in regards to our summer youth program. So I would ask for, make a motion to approve and correct that omission if we still have the opportunity. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. So you wanted to hear from Commissioner Mills. Thank you very much. We had 367 youth apply for 150 slots. It's on the website today. And so the demand for youth jobs for low-income youth far exceeds this amount. So that was inadvertently left out. This will just make us whole for 150 slots next year. Thank you. I make a motion we approve. Thank you, Commissioner. I make a motion we approve item number six. So Council Member Ford moved and Council Member Myers seconded to approve item six on page two. Is there a discussion? Council Member Lane. This is on another matter for this issue. Thank you. Is there discussion on this item? I see none. All right. Now, are you? Okay, you're for another item. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So item number six is approved. and council members and Chief Bastin and his assistant chiefs and deputy have been very patient. We're kind of on a roll with the late items, and as much as I hate to ask you this, could you come back on Thursday? I know you thought I was going to ask you to give your presentation now, but it's up to the council. It has clearly to do with the LINCS recommendations, and we are not going to get to those today. So it's the council's pleasure. Yes, Kevin, do you want to go ahead and hear? Well, I would just ask, we do have some citizens here to speak about this very issue that the police are going to speak about, that if there's a way we can hear it today so they don't have to come back again Thursday. Because this obviously has had heavy citizen input. Council will need to decide if they want to have public input at this committee of the whole, since it's the council's budget. Or if we can have it at 3 o'clock even, I mean. Yeah. Okay. And I hate to make our police officers come back. I do, too. I mean, Council Member Lane. All right. Our general services meeting starts at 1 o'clock. General government, excuse me. And I don't think we're going to have time to cover all this, so I would say have the police make their presentation, and we have to set another meeting, complete our work. Okay. Is that, Council Member Stennett, did you have a comment on that or on something else? No, it was on that. If the council would, there is a citizen here who would like to speak after their presentation. in regards to the issue. Since they were going to be here, they wanted the police to be able to speak as well. Okay. Chief, why don't you come on up, and how long is your presentation? Is it 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 12? It could probably be an hour. An hour? Oh. In all seriousness, I'd plan to go 10 to 15 minutes, but I expect there will be a lot of questions. Well, this is why it's directly related to the links, And so shall we just see a show of hands, whether you want to hear it in the last 10 minutes and then have the discussion on Thursday or have the whole thing on Thursday? Council Member Stennett? You know, if we're going to hear it for information only and not get into the discussion, I think we can do it. But if we're going to have a full-fledged discussion, there is no way we'll get it done today. Yes, I agree. Council Member Farmer? I agree with the point. We need to take time with it, but I think we do have time to have input from one constituent and former council member before we break and come back for a meeting at 1 o'clock. And I would so move. And so your motion is to hear from Citizen and hear the police on Thursday. Do I hear a second? Okay. Any discussion? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So will we have the police come back again on Thursday to answer questions from the council? They'll come back and give their presentation on Thursday. Okay. And we can hear them first, even though we won't be ready for links. Okay. Any other comment on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Chief, I apologize and thank you for your patience and that of your staff. With that, we'll hear from a citizen, and on Thursday, just so everybody's on the same page, we'll start with page four on the late items on Thursday. So are there citizens who wish to speak? Council Member Stinnett? Yes, Vice President. This is actually one of our former colleagues in my seat several years ago, Mr. Jim Combs, who would like to add some input in on the police issue. Welcome, Mr. Combs. You'll have three minutes. Three minutes. If you'll say your name and address, please. I can't open my mouth and shut up. Oh, well. We're glad to have you back. I used to be back there where you didn't have to shut up. You keep on calling. We limit council members, too. I'm James Combs. I live at 453 Lambeau Drive, Lexington. I thank you all for the time to speak here today. I was elected to State Council in 1980. I served eight years, 80 through 88, and was chairman of the Intergovernmental Committee six of those years. One of the first things that happened when I got on, I discovered that we had a very bad problem here. And it's nothing compared back then to what it is now. When you had a funeral, there was no way to go through town and run red lights and get run over. Well, now we have a... I took it to the council and put it on a work session. and I was told by a certain person that we didn't need a police escort for ambulance, that there'd be other things I would be needing as we got along further in the council. Well, I told this person, I've got eight votes. Eight votes, you can get anything you want on this council. and so went ahead when it was brought up to be discussed at the work session the mayor said we don't need to talk about this I can go ahead and put it into operations and he put it into operation without any discretion or anything so therefore we've had the police escort continues since 1980 Myself, I've thought been in a lot of, at my age you get to go more and more, a lot of funeral processions. And I think it's one of the greatest things that the police in the city of Lexington does, is for the last respects, they take the pace of one of their citizens, is to have a police escort through town. Now, with the amount of traffic you have now, especially if you have to go out to Bluegrass Gardens, and you've got a lot of red lights and a lot of traffic to go through, and you're just asking for more accidents for people to get hurt. So I would urge you to keep this going. Don't pass the charge on to a funeral home and then expect that funeral home to collect it and pay for it. A lot of people are now having a rough time paying for their funerals, much less pay a lot extra for a police escort. We're paying taxes, and we have to raise taxes and raise taxes, but don't put it on a utility bill as a service fee. We're getting an awful lot of service fees on our utility bills. Mr. Combs. Mr. Combs. Okay. I'm sorry. Your time is up. It is good to have you back. Well. Thank you very much. As I say, this is the first time I've ever been on this end. I mean, at a work session or anything like that. I think one time before it came down. But I've been to a lot of sessions out of that eight years. And you believe it or not, sometimes I'd be sitting up there by myself for a budget hearing. And if I had three or four people for a budget hearing, I thought I was flying. Well, we welcome you back any time. Well, thank you now. Thank you very much. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you.