# Budget Committee of the Whole - June 7, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 7, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2557 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2557?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-06-07 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 23,113 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 Council Budget Committee of the Whole met on June 7, 2012, at 3:00 p.m., presided over by the Vice Mayor. The committee addressed nine agenda items during the session, taking 32 motions and votes and hearing 10 public comments. The meeting resulted in several approvals and one tabled item. The committee approved the Review Links Recommendations, Mayor's Late Items, Revenue Number Adoption, Arboretum Bathroom Funding, Partners for Youth Funding, Assistant Director for Corrections position, and SALT Budget Reduction. The Review Councilmember Recommendations item was tabled for later consideration. The FY 13 Council Budget Schedule was presented as an informational item. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 7, 2012: **Council Members:** - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Henson - Council Member Lane - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Martin - Council Member Myers - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Beard - Council Member Kay - Council Member Blues - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Kaye **Commissioners:** - Commissioner Driscoll - Commissioner Hamilton - Commissioner Mason - Commissioner O'Mara - Commissioner Paulson - Commissioner Ryan - Commissioner Barrows - Commissioner Milligan - Commissioner Hancock **Other Attendees:** - Connie Underwood - Ms. Maynard - Mr. Schoeniger - Mr. Maloney - Glenn Brown No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The council approved multiple items during this meeting, primarily through voice votes on pages of the revised late item list and budget recommendations. **Late Item List Approvals** The council voted to approve pages 2 through 17 of the revised late item list. Page 2 was approved on a motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Martin [timestamp: 00:38:11]. Page 3 was approved as amended, with items 21 and 22 removed, on a motion by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 01:18:03]. Pages 4 through 17 were subsequently approved through individual voice votes, with motions made by various council members between [timestamp: 01:22:00] and [timestamp: 01:42:16]. **Budget and Financial Decisions** The council approved the reallocation of bond proceeds for the Streetscape project on a motion by Council Member Blue, seconded by Council Member Ellinger [timestamp: 01:51:52]. The revenue estimate of $289,429,968 for the Mayor's proposed budget passed with a roll call vote of 10 ayes and 2 nays [timestamp: 01:58:25]. Council Members Ellinger and Kaye voted against the measure. Council Members Farmer, Henson, Lane, Lawless, Martin, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Kay, and Blues voted in favor. **LINC Recommendations and Amendments** The council approved LINC recommendations for Finance, Social Services, and Outside Agencies [timestamp: 02:24:21], General Government [timestamp: 02:25:25], and Environmental Quality and Public Works, excluding Valley View Ferry [timestamp: 02:39:29]. An amendment to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000 was approved [timestamp: 02:40:34]. Public safety LINC recommendations (items 1 and 2) were approved [timestamp: 02:57:54]. Item 3 regarding the Assistant Director for Corrections was separated for individual consideration and passed with 13 ayes and 1 nay [timestamp: 03:03:34], with Council Member Beard voting against. **Additional Approvals** The General Services Parks Maintenance Budget was approved on a motion by Council Member Lane, seconded by Council Member Kay [timestamp: 03:04:48]. The council also voted to change the budget meeting time to 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday on a motion by Council Member Myers, seconded by Council Member Kay [timestamp: 03:05:53]. **Tabled Motions** Two motions were tabled: approval of items 64-67 from Councilmember recommendations [timestamp: 02:16:01] and a motion to restore $42,000 to the Council Office Professional Services Fund [timestamp: 02:29:56]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included the following financial actions and appropriations: **Amendments** * Increase in golf revenues to fund the general fund: $152,894 * Funding for the Valley View Ferry match: $1,000,000 * Funding for the user fee public information campaign: $243,000 * Funding for the SALT budget reduction: $200,000 **Appropriations** * Arboretum bathroom construction: $125,000 * Partners for Youth program: $25,000 * Neighborhood match grant: $50,000 * PDR program: $1,000,000 * Arena Arts and Entertainment District match: $1,250,000 * Constitution Park softball field: $238,000 * Berry Hill skate park match: $150,000 * Public safety radio project: $1,000,000 **Contracts** * Electronic instrumentation technician: $45,000 * Assistant director for corrections: $109,840 **Revenue** * Landfill loaner box program: $90,000 The appropriations totaled $4,838,000, with major funding directed toward the Arena Arts and Entertainment District match ($1,250,000), the PDR program ($1,000,000), the public safety radio project ($1,000,000), and the Constitution Park softball field ($238,000). Additional funding supported community programs including Partners for Youth ($25,000) and infrastructure improvements at the Arboretum ($125,000) and Berry Hill ($150,000). ## Public Comment Council members raised several concerns during discussion of the proposed budget: **Revenue Forecast** Council Member Stinnett expressed concern about the economy and the 4% revenue increase assumption, though acknowledged the expertise behind the forecast [timestamp: 02:04:52]. Council Member Martin stated he would not vote for the revenue number due to discomfort with the economic outlook and the 4% increase assumption [timestamp: 02:04:52]. **Council Salary Adjustment** Council Member Martin raised concerns about the process and fairness of the salary adjustment, noting that council members had not been informed of cost-of-living adjustments in prior years [timestamp: 02:25:55]. Council Member Beard expressed concern that the salary adjustment was not properly processed and could impact future compensation [timestamp: 02:14:09]. **Arboretum Bathroom Funding** Council Member Lawless suggested that the bathroom request was a new item and should be discussed in the council recommendations rather than as a late item [timestamp: 02:06:52]. Council Member Kay moved to strike the Arboretum bathroom item from the late item list and place it on the council recommendations agenda [timestamp: 02:04:40]. Council Member Myers questioned whether new items like the Arboretum bathrooms should be considered late items, arguing that the mayor had already presented a balanced budget [timestamp: 02:55:13]. **Collective Bargaining Agreement** Council Member Lane requested a three-year forecast of the total cost of the police collective bargaining agreement to better understand long-term financial impact [timestamp: 02:08:34]. **Public Safety Funding** Council Member Stinnett emphasized the importance of having an assistant director at the jail to support the new director and improve operations [timestamp: 02:56:49]. Council Member Myers supported the assistant director position to give the new jail director the resources needed to implement reforms [timestamp: 03:01:52]. ## Contested Items The June 7, 2012 council meeting included four items that generated significant debate among members. **Arboretum Bathroom Funding** Council members disputed the procedural handling of a $125,000 request for Arboretum bathrooms. The disagreement centered on whether the item should be classified as a late item or a new item for council recommendations. Members raised concerns about the process and timing of the request. **Council Salary Adjustment** The council was divided on approving a salary correction for members. The dispute involved questions about the process used to determine the adjustment and concerns about fairness, particularly regarding how cost-of-living increases were calculated and applied. **Assistant Director for Corrections** A heated discussion erupted over the proposal to add a new assistant director position in the corrections department. Council members questioned the appropriateness of creating the position given documented high turnover and existing staffing issues at the jail. Some members characterized the proposal as "empire building," suggesting the position was unnecessary expansion rather than a justified operational need. **SALT Budget Reduction** Council members split on the rationale for reducing the SALT budget. The disagreement focused on whether the assumption that a full salt barn existed justified the proposed budget cut. Members questioned the basis for the reduction and whether the underlying assumption was sound. ## Review Links Recommendations The Council reviewed recommendations from LINC totaling $261,765 across multiple departmental areas [timestamp: 02:22:09]. The recommendations encompassed items in finance, social services, environmental quality, public safety, and general services. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The review involved several Council members, including Connie Underwood, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Blues, and Council Member Martin, who participated in the discussion of the proposed recommendations. **Areas of Debate** The discussion included debate on two specific matters: the SALT budget reduction and the assistant director for corrections position. These items generated particular attention during the Council's review of the LINC recommendations. **Outcome** The recommendations were approved by the Council. ## Review Councilmember Recommendations [timestamp: 02:07:17] Council members presented individual recommendations during this agenda item, which included funding proposals for youth employment programs, sidewalk repairs, intersection repaving, stoplights, and jail improvements. The discussion centered on procedural questions regarding how these recommendations should be handled. Council members debated whether the items should be treated as late items or moved to the council recommendations agenda for consideration. **Key Speakers:** - Council Member Ford - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Martin **Outcome:** The item was tabled, meaning the council postponed further action on these recommendations at this time. ## FY 13 Council Budget Schedule The council reviewed the FY 13 Council Budget Schedule during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:08:00]. The Vice Mayor led the discussion on this presentation. The review focused on several key areas of the budget schedule: * Revenue considerations * Late items requiring attention * Council recommendations The discussion took place within the context of the meeting's overall progress and time constraints. The item was presented as informational in nature, providing the council with an update on the budget schedule status rather than requiring a formal decision or vote at this time. ## Mayor's Late Items The Council reviewed and approved a revised list of late items during this portion of the meeting [timestamp: 00:09:04]. **Items Reviewed** The revised late items included corrections and adjustments across multiple fund categories: - General fund corrections - Urban services fund adjustments - Police contract savings - Golf revenue increases - Funding for Arboretum bathrooms - Funding for Partners for Youth **Key Speakers** Commissioner Driscoll, Commissioner Hamilton, and Commissioner O'Mara participated in the discussion of these late items. **Outcome** The Council approved the revised list of late items as presented. ## Revenue Number Adoption The Council discussed and adopted a revenue estimate of $289,429,968 for the Mayor's proposed budget. This figure included updated golf revenue projections. Council Members Farmer, Martin, and Stinnett were key participants in this discussion [timestamp: 01:58:25]. The motion to adopt the revenue number passed with a vote of 10-2. Two Council members opposed the adoption, citing economic concerns as their reason for voting against the measure. ## Arboretum Bathroom Funding [timestamp: 02:04:40] The Council addressed a $125,000 funding request for Arboretum bathrooms, with discussion centered on whether the item should be treated as a late addition to the agenda. Council Members Kay, Lawless, and Beard participated in the debate. The Council voted on a motion to remove the item from the late item list. The motion passed with a vote of 12-1, allowing the Arboretum bathroom funding request to proceed to the council recommendations agenda. The outcome was approved, moving the $125,000 request forward for consideration as a regular agenda item rather than a late item. ## Partners for Youth Funding The Council addressed a $25,000 funding request for Partners for Youth, which had been submitted as a late item. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Myers were key participants in the discussion. The primary debate centered on whether the request should be treated as a late item on the agenda. The Council voted on a motion to remove it from the late item list, which passed unanimously 13-0. Following this vote, the funding request was moved to the council recommendations agenda for further consideration. The item was ultimately approved. [timestamp: 02:16:55] ## Assistant Director for Corrections The Council considered funding for an Assistant Director for Corrections position during this meeting [timestamp: 03:03:34]. **Discussion and Debate** Council members Council Member Martin, Council Member Myers, and Council Member Lawless participated in the discussion. The debate centered on the need for leadership support at the jail facility. **Outcome** The Council approved $109,840 in funding for the Assistant Director for Corrections position. The motion passed with 13 votes in favor and 1 opposed. ## SALT Budget Reduction The Council discussed and approved a $200,000 reduction in the SALT budget [timestamp: 02:45:16]. The reduction was justified based on current operational conditions, specifically citing a full salt barn and a sufficient supply of salt on hand. **Key Speakers** Council Member Blues, Council Member Ellinger, and Council Member Ford participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Debate and Discussion** The Council engaged in debate regarding the basis for the proposed budget reduction before moving to a vote on the measure. **Outcome** The motion to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000 passed with a vote of 12-1, indicating strong Council support for the reduction. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 2 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 3 of the revised late item list as amended, removing items 21 and 22 - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 4 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 5 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 6 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 7 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 8 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 9 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 10 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 11 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 12 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 13 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 14 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 15 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 16 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve page 17 of the revised late item list - **Motion** — passed: Approve the reallocation of bond proceeds for the Streetscape project - **Motion** — passed (10-2): Approve the revenue estimate of $289,429,968 for the Mayor's proposed budget - **Motion** — tabled: Approve items 64, 65, 66, and 67 from the Councilmember recommendations - **Motion** — passed: Table Councilmember Stinnett's motion to approve items 64–67 until after LINC recommendations are heard - **Motion** — passed: Approve LINC recommendations for Finance, Social Services, and Outside Agencies (items 1–3) - **Motion** — passed: Approve General Government LINC recommendations (items 4–7) - **Motion** — tabled: Restore $42,000 to the Council Office Professional Services Fund - **Motion** — passed: Table the motion to restore $42,000 to the Council Office Professional Services Fund until historical data is reviewed - **Motion** — passed: Approve Environmental Quality and Public Works LINC recommendations (excluding Valley View Ferry) - **Motion** — passed: Amend the motion to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000 - **Motion** — passed: Call the question on the motion to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000 - **Motion** — passed: Approve public safety LINC recommendations (items 1 and 2) - **Motion** — passed: Separate item 3 (Assistant Director for Corrections) from the public safety motion for individual vote - **Motion** — passed (13-1): Approve item 3 (Assistant Director for Corrections) under public safety - **Motion** — passed: Approve General Services Parks Maintenance Budget - **Motion** — passed: Change the Council budget meeting time to 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday --- ## Full transcript We need to fill in with the air in bed I wanna share the world with you, see Springtime and powers, but so good to me Oh, this is for me, I let you see so Keep me Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm so sorry. I'm out. I'm sorry. guitar solo Thank you. The seventh, and this is the Council's Budget Committee of the Whole meeting, and we have a quorum. So on our agenda today, we have several items, and one is the mayor's late item list, which, council members, you should have received a revised copy, and I'm not sure if that came last night or today. Did it come yesterday? And then we'll review LINCS recommendations and review councilmember recommendations. And I think one of the big decisions that we might want to make today is our revenue. Each budget year we need to adopt a revenue number on which we make our decisions about any budget items. So would it be possible, Commissioner, to first do revenue so that Council can look at revenue separately? This is to be our meeting to have our last revenue update. Welcome, Commissioner Driscoll. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We are today bringing only one change to the general fund. and it relates to the late item list, and that is the increased revenues for golf. And that is as discussed by this council and the target that was determined to be appropriate. Other than that, there are no other changes in the general fund service district revenues. I have Bill here if you want some additional detail. We have been reviewing the most recent revenue for the previous month, and he may have some additional detail that would be helpful. So I'll let Bill. Welcome, Mr. O'Mara. Thank you. We are in the process of closing the month of May, And looking at those revenues, we feel like the current forecast should be unchanged. While we're plussing early in the year, and it seems that the steam may be diminishing. I believe you may have read that on a national basis on the economic forecast. We have some major activity and employers here in our jurisdiction. that shed light on that as well. So we're not recommending any changes in the revenue at this time. So what is your revenue number that you would like to submit for Council to accept? I think it's page four in the mayor's proposed budget. So you're not recommending an update based on the golf revenues? Except for the late item list, yes. Well, I think it would be helpful to council members to know what our final revenue number is, so that we can then, that's how we base all of our changes, if we want to make changes. So if you all could give us a number, that would be helpful. Let me see Brian a minute. I've got a calculator. We'll add that to it, and you'll have the number. Okay, thank you. The total revenue? Okay, I think it's page one on the late item list then. Is that the revised late item list? Council members, if you'll be sure you have the revised late item change summary and not the original one, it says revised in the lower left-hand corner. And so your revenue number is $289,429,968. Council members, that is on page one of the revised late item change summary. It's $289,429,968, and that includes the increase in Gulf revenues of $152,894. I know we have a lot of paper. We do, yes. So we can move on to a presentation of each of these items on the late item summary, and then we can always come back to the revenue and ask for a motion. We have, if you'll hold off just a second, Council Member Stenet. I was just going to ask on the revenue piece, where are we accounting for if we pass the ordinance to change the health care costs at the jail, the extra $200,000 that that generates for next fiscal year, where are we going to account for that additional revenue? Shouldn't that be in general fund, too? That is a separate fund. It would come after you approve that change. Right. Tonight's the first reading. and if everything goes okay well, I'll second it in two weeks, is that not part of the late item revenue in general fund then? I mean, we could make that adjustment, but go ahead. I think our understanding was that your workshop was going to be after ratification, and in light of that, we were taking it off of our list, and it would come in as a budget amendment in July. Okay, so you will bring it in July to change your revenue? If you approve it at your workshop, it would come after the time frame that we have to start making the document itself. And it does go through the general fund, not any other accounts? Correct. Can it be dedicated back to the detention center? It could be appropriated. Okay. All right. And the amount was $200,000? Approximate ballpark? Approximately. I just want to make sure I remember that right. I just didn't want to leave anything out, so if it would benefit them, we'd be able to return it back. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. And now we have Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Jane, just to piggyback off what Council Member Stennett was talking about, the inmate funds, and maybe this will come up at the workshop so we won't know right now, but I know that the inmate, their funds that they use to purchase what Director Ballard was talking about, candy bars and personal items and things like that, would that not reduce? Because I'm like, okay, are they going to have money? Is there going to be more money? Are they going to have that money in addition to increased medical costs? Would they have that money in addition to that? I just know there's a significant markup on what that costs the detention center and what the inmate pays. So I was just curious about. I think at the workshop we'll be able to show you how all of the accounts relate to one another. The commissary account may be affected, for example. Right. So it may not add up to $200,000 if you're losing money. If you're offsetting cost of goods sold, for example. Right. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions about revenue before we move into the late item list? Council members? Okay. So, Commissioner. Yes, ma'am. If you don't mind, I think the best thing for going through the revised list, which thank you for getting us this, is to just go through item by item and talk about what it is. And I believe it would be helpful for council members to know which are the revised items that were different on the first list that we got last week. if you can let us know as we go along what the changes are on the revised list. And then as we go through, Council Members, if we could stop at the end of a page and have questions if you want rather than holding them all up to the end. Okay. Does that suit everybody? Thank you very much. Thank you. We will then start on, the first sheets are the table of contents and an introduction. So if we could turn to revised one, which is what I spoke about, the increase in golf revenues. And that is as proposed by Commissioner Hamilton and as all the discussion that took place in these chambers. And that was the number that was proposed. So I don't know if there were any additional questions on that. Moving on to our corrections omissions section for general services, page 2. Item 2 is the increase in landline phone expense for social services. As you know, as you go through a budget, there are things that are inadvertently admitted from the original request. This is one of those examples. and there are three different account strings that need to be adjusted and increase. Again, the first column is an increase in expense. The middle column is an expense decrease. The last column is showing a fund balance. So those are three. We group them together because they are the same category of expenditures within social services. Do you want me to? I guess I want to be sure under the expense increase, which doesn't have parentheses around it, but does reflect a decrease to the budget. I mean, it's an expense. It's an expense. It's an additional expense, a decrease to fund balance. Yes. So those numbers which are not in parentheses decrease our fund balance. Yes. Just so everybody is on the same page with that. I think you can just keep going along. Some of these are quick. Yes. The second item, number three, just to decrease insurance allocation for special projects by increasing insurance expense to the mayor's office. When we, as you all know, we made an effort to distribute the appropriate insurance costs throughout the agencies in the government. We talked about this in the links. Special projects shouldn't have been assigned. That total amount should have gone to the mayor's office administrative piece. It nets out. Number four is just simply changing the account number for animal control. Again, NET's out. Number five is we talked about funding some expenses out of the public safety fund, but we forgot to do the other side of the transaction. So, again, this would transfer monies from the public safety fund to fund some expenses that we have in the mayor's proposed budget. That was just correcting that error. Number six, and seven, maybe I can address them together because they're a similar situation. This is where we do a personnel model. Simply put, we had some incorrect assumptions in the model, and the data that we pulled was incorrect. and this is just correcting what your current salaries are for both you and the mayor. So this is no increase. This is just appropriating the current level of salaries for council members and the mayor. So that's number six and seven. Number eight is we inadvertently admitted, and this was talked about in the links as well, the amount of money to fund the Parks Patrol within the Parks and Recreation Department. As we made, and you all know from that link, we made some significant changes within the parks operations. And these were a couple of things that, when we were looking at our savings, were omitted, which was the correct position, a position in the golf pro supervisor was omitted that salary. And so we're correcting that in number nine. Number ten is adjusting the salary for when we built the budgets. There were a couple of people in certain positions or they weren't in the position. And the vacancies are only funded at a certain percent, so we needed to, once those folks moved into those positions, budget for the filled position. And that is number 10 in the CAO's office, and 11 is our Director of Community Corrections. And again, these are just those individuals' current salaries. No increase, no adjustment, just their current salaries for 10 and 11. I might add, I didn't speak to this, but if there is an item that's shaded, it relates to another item on the list, and the item that it relates to is listed next to the original item number. So for an example, item 12 is the estimate for the property tax audit in 13 needed to be adjusted to pay for the actual cost of the audit. And as you know, we prorate that, if you will, through a variety of funds. And so that's what the other number relates to, the similar adjustment within that fund. And if you move on to page 3, item number 13, this is – Are there – excuse me for interrupting. Are there any questions about item, the first page that we've gotten, Council Member Stenet? Vice President, I know in the past we've kind of tried to approve them page by page or number by number. Would it help if we go ahead and vote on these? Or do we want to go through the whole list and come back and vote on them again? I know we've done it both ways. Yeah, I have thought we'd maybe just go through the whole list if it works, because I know some council members want to discuss the salaries and to come back to those items, and also the ones that have been added or changed from the first list. It's up to you all. Well, as she's talking about them, I think now is the opportunity to go into details if we don't want to or want to do something. Would Council like to approve page by page? Take questions and approve. Anybody who objects? Okay, let's take Mr. Farmer. We'll stay on page two then. Mr. Farmer. I was just going to agree with the commentary of Council Member Stennett to kind of, unless there are other questions about page two, or even back to page one to make individual motions, and that way we can knock these out as we go rather than leave them as a running tally is at least my thought. I'm not making a motion, just a commentary. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It was sort of brought to my attention here that there had been irregularity in the compensation of the council members. And I just had a question. If I follow line six on page two, is that some type of an adjustment to the pay for council? Is that what that's all about? I think some kind of adjustment to what I'm sorry. I didn't hear the last part of your question. I'm sorry. The question is item six. That looks like a – it says to adjust council members' and vice mayor's salary. And I presume that is a negative number. It is, and maybe the title isn't misleading. It's basically correcting the budget document to reflect your current salaries. Okay. Well, I'm a little bit confused about this because evidently the council has not compensated correctly for the last three or four years. I think there's supposed to be a cost of living increase computed into our pay. We did take a freeze in our salary in 2008. So I'm just curious how that – does this tie into that in any way? Well, I sent you some information about this earlier in response to the vice mayor and some questions regarding that process. I will say to you that the past years, your salaries were paid as the budget was passed. So the salaries that were included in the budget were level, status quo. So the budget that you passed included no increases for council salaries. The last two years, and I can speak only for the last two budgets. I shouldn't say last two years. Last two budget developments, when we asked for information regarding what we'd like reflected in the budget, we were asked to also submit the budget within the mayor's proposed budget as status quo. So really the remaining question, and I outlined that, is what you would like to do in terms of the salary for the proposed budget year. And if you look at the ordinance, and I have the ordinance passed by Council No. 95-97, that the adjustment would be based on CPI from the prior year and that, if you look at the CPI, the All Urban Index for the preceding calendar year, we looked at December of 2011, the percent change is 3%, and that would be the Vice Mayor 3%, and the remainder of the council members would be 90% of that, or 2.7%. I also gave you some information because I believe in just reading, again, historic documents, and I wasn't here, but inferred that the last council action that took place was to decline, and it looked like there was some basis on what was going on with the rest of the employees within the government. Now that you all were here, or some of you were here, I was not. So I did put in context for you in this email what the salary increases have been in the past and what is included in the current year for your information. So we can compute that percent for you, and then if you would take action not to take it is how I read the ordinance. Okay. I have not personally had a chance to check out exactly what the ordinance says, but it's my understanding that our pay is adjusted by the cost of living from some base period several years back. And we do not give ourselves raises whatsoever. And the pay for council members is not that great to begin with, but the fact that we didn't get pay weight that before we finalized the budget. And my concern is not so much for myself, but we have some members of our council are not full-time employed. And then the other factor is that the adjustment not only would impact us today, but if we don't do this correctly, it could impact the compensation into the future for council members. So I think we need to maybe look at this real carefully before we finalize this. As I said, I haven't had a chance to look at it in detail, so we may be right on the money, but I think it's worth looking into in a little bit more detail before I would vote on that one. Thank you. I do think, just for some clarification, there are two issues at hand. If I might take a minute, I sent each of you a memo with a packet of information. One of the issues is process. I think that until 2009 through 2008, council members always were informed of what their salaries would be based on the CPI. So they were informed before the budget, and they were informed usually in March, February-March time frame. just as any employee would be informed about a potential change in their salary. So I think the process, and I realize this was before you were here, the process for some reason was dropped. And so council members in fiscal year 09 were not informed and probably didn't realize that someone plugged something into the budget for salaries. And so the process where council members would be informed and have the opportunity to either by ordinance turn down a raise or let the raise go through, that was lost. And I think that's number one. Number two, as I also outlined in my packet, is, you know, council members traditionally have been very good about not taking a raise when our employees didn't get a raise. It's been up front, and we have not done that, to my knowledge, at least, Mr. Farmer, since you and I have been here. Non-sworn. That's right, non-sworn. Thank you. And so there was a year when our employees got a raise when apparently council raises were plugged in as flat. So I think there are a lot of issues to discuss here just to see what council wants to do, just for some history. Council Member Martin, thank you for allowing me to do that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, I sent you an e-mail earlier today, and I know you're probably on the run, particularly on days like this. So my question was, did the city follow the statute or not? I guess I'm unclear about whether the pay raises for elected officials are mandatory under the statute or whether it's not. And I may ask Val to jump in here as well, but when I was researching, when I first arrived into building the first budget, I actually inquired because the Department of Local Government sends out information in terms of the maximum salary for local officials. The distinction for me was it didn't reference an urban county government. So I called DLG and had that talk through with them. However, I was not aware and was not made aware of our local ordinance, and because the process hadn't happened in the last couple of years, nor did I have files that reflected that. So it's a local ordinance. However, in talking to law, the budget passed, had flat salaries, and it supersedes. Our local budget can't supersede state law, can it? There isn't a state law that applies to urban county government, according to the information provided to me by the Department of Labor government. Okay, so the answer is that it doesn't violate state law. There is no state law that we have not complied. That's my question. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate the comments about the process. It does need to be discussed, and we probably need to follow a process that we put in place. but there's a couple other processes on raises even for our own employees that we haven't followed. So I wouldn't think that the reason why we didn't follow our own process on our own salaries is given the fact of the economy. I don't think anyone on here wanted a raise in the budget. And since we didn't follow the work ordinance either, we didn't give our employees a raise, and I think that was the justification as why we hadn't seen anything or follow our own process. But given that, I think this is a totally different conversation than what number six really is. Number six is just a correction to the budget. I think if we want to have this conversation, it could be a council late item discussion. I'd like to get through this list today before we leave for Sylvia and I have an idea of what revenue we're really working on once we get the councilman's recommendation. So I'd like to move on because that's just a correction. This ain't adding anything or doing anything different. This is just a correction in the budget at this point. That's just my opinion, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Yes, it is. And just for further clarity, I think based on what the Commissioner said, although our employees are taking a pay raise, we're giving a pay raise this year, this would make Councilmember salaries flat again, correct? The change addressed in the late item list assumes status quo, flat salary. Yes, just so we all understand. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree with Council Member Stinnett. I'm just not clear if it wouldn't be easier to remove this one item so that we don't make a correction and then come back and make a further correction. I don't know procedurally what's easier. Council Member Stinnett, would you object to a motion to just remove this and then allow us to have the conversation so we don't act on that? Well, you're assuming someone wants to bring it up there in our council additions that we would want to add our salary increases back in. I think this is just the mayor's corrections. And I think I'd like to focus on get them out of the way and then let us focus on our piece of the budget. And if we want to add back in something, we can add it back in. But let's take care of what they feel like needs to be corrected, whether it be a typo or whatever. And I think this is what that was, just a simple typo. And that's what, you know, I'd like to move on and accept that. And if we want to add something back in later, we can do it. like we're going to do anyway later on. Okay, that suits me. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor, if it pleases the Council, I was going to make a motion to approve page two of the late items as submitted in this revised packet. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Martin, to approve page two. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone object? Any no votes? Okay. We'll go on to page three. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Number 13 is the increase in funding for LFUCG's match for the Valley View Ferry. We included this as a late item change as a correction because the information, originally when we submitted the mayor's proposed budget, we were thinking that the maintenance dollars that are included, were included or currently included in the budget would be lessened as the new ferry came on board. However, timing is not going to work out appropriately in this fiscal year, so we need to include the grant match next year. our maintenance dollars will decrease for the Valley View Ferry. Fourteen, in the mayor's office, the funds for the neighborhood match grant were omitted from the original budget. That is, as status quo from last fiscal year or current fiscal year. Number 15, again, inadvertently omitted from the original request for a technician, electronic instrumentation technician in general services. So that is an increase. Number 16 relates to the extended school program, again, which was discussed in LYNX. and we had determined originally that there were some over-expenditures in the extended school program with the original budget information we'd received from parks, and this is correcting and making that fund even so that we're not contributing additional general fund to the extended school program. So that is just so this is, I think, one of the first. No, it's not. But this is an expense decrease, so it falls in that. middle column. And it does relate to the extended school program fund. So we'll see that later in the late item list. Number 17, this is just an item that the blue sheet was finalized after the original request was finalized. And that was one of the categories that we were asked to include. that is in Enterprise Solutions, and that's just the differentiation between those two levels of positions. Number 18 is moving positions from the Commissioner of Planning to Planning Administration. It's just a correction to the original request in the budget. Again, no net new dollars. It's just a change in how it's reflected in the budget. Number 19 is to, when we put together Commissioner Paulson's budget and moved people around and made those corrections, we did not include funds for his operating budget for the commissioner's office. So we wanted to include those items for professional services, training, supplies, et cetera, for the actual Commissioner of Planning, Preservation, and Development's office. That's number 19. So that was omitted or not included by error. Number 20, Vice Mayor, is the first of two items that made this a revised document instead of the original document. And that is made up of several line items. And this is, and we talked to you about this, the difference between when we built the budget, we were assuming the last, best, and final contract to be implemented for next year in the police department. Between that time and now, as you know, there has been a police contract that has been ratified, And these are the appropriate changes to reflect reality for next fiscal year. I have one correction, though, to my correction, and I apologize. The second item, which is $2,800, should be $28,000. And I'm sorry. Okay, well, that's a little. You're talking about over under the expense increase. Expense increase, the second block down within item 20 reads $2,800 today in front of you. It should be $28,000. And I can correct your bottom total. The ending fund balance for general services at the very bottom reads $1277862 today. With this change, it should read, and the correct total is 1-2-5-2-6-6-2. And we just found this going through, and just want to ask your indulgence to make that correction. That's at the bottom of page 3, and the number again is 1-2-5-2-6-6-2. Yes, ma'am. Correct? Mm-hmm. Okay. Okay. So again, this reflects the contract as passed for the savings that will be realized. And don't look at these as the total savings. These are the adjustments to the certain accounts that needed to be changed. There were other accounts already correct. So don't add that up and somehow think that this is the savings from police because it won't get you there. But these are the individual line items. We told you we would do that in one of our meetings, and so this reflects that correction. Did I sufficiently confuse everybody with that one? No, it's clear. Thank you. 21 is an item that was not included in the mayor's proposed budget, construction for bathrooms at the Arboretum. It's $125. And number 22, there were some recommendations through the Partners for Youth. Again, it's a timing issue, and this is funding for some of the recommendations from the Youth Task Force, part-time individual to work with our individuals at the Partners for Youth program, and that's $25,000. That is the end of the general services piece of the late item list. Thank you. So page three. Council Member Stennett, did you have some questions? Yes, Vice Mayor. On 21, is that the total cost for the bathrooms? That's design, construction, everything. That is the information we received from Commissioner Hamilton, and I didn't know if she wanted to add. You'd rather during this time pay cash for this versus put in, normally we would bond something like that. Is that just a difference in philosophy from the past, we've done the past, or is there a reason why we want to pay the cash for a capital need? This, again, the Arboretum and where it's housed, I think is a difference, the property. So we don't own the property. Correct. So tell me again how we got to build the bathrooms in. Did we drive a short straw? Why are we building the bathroom? I know it was a request to us. So this is a donation to an outside agency then, more or less? Yes. So we won't be building them. We're just going to give the money over to the Arboretum to build? That was the plan. And do we fund the Arboretum in any other capacity in the budget? Not to my knowledge. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can you clarify where is the money coming from? General fund. So it's not coming from someone else. No. These are general fund dollars. And these are new items, correct, that were not in the budget? These last two? They were not in the budget. That is correct. And they were not errors like the other, you know, blue-sheeted, et cetera. I would say there are more timing issues. Councilmember Lawless. It seems that FEMA is, that UK is getting hopefully a large amount of money from FEMA about including Arboretum, the flooding. They're going to redo Alumni Drive, hopefully with that money, et cetera. And I'm wondering if, and there was some talk about even doing pervious surface parking lot at the Arboretum, et cetera. And I'm wondering if that FEMA money is, if they're planning to do that with the FEMA money, too. I have no knowledge of, other than the request to this government. Who made the request? I'd have to look up. Mrs. Ferris. Marcia Ferris, who is the Executive Director of the Arboretum, she approached the government about this particular request. And she talked about this request in terms of that they had just finished, they had done the $1 million campaign for the Children's Garden. And I think had probably one of the best, most satisfying private campaigns for an area like this. And she felt that there was no possibility of a private fundraising to do those bathrooms. And the crowd that's up there, they have the bathrooms in their facilities themselves, but there's a tremendous crowd up there in the mornings before they ever open and in the evenings when they close. So they were going to have, they had arranged that they would have volunteers to make sure everything was fine with these bathrooms and staged, but they were getting so, so many complaints because of the bathroom situation. And she said there had been a partnership, and I didn't, I haven't seen that agreement yet, that there had been a previous agreement with the city and the Arboretum for just a pub, for not you'll do this and I'll do that, but that there would be an Arboretum built. And this was an attempt, which we appreciated, to have the government help the Arboretum with this. And I love the Arboretum and certainly is heavily used by our citizens, et cetera. My only thing was should we check and see if that would be part of the FEMA money before? I mean, I'm perfectly fine approving funding this if there isn't other money that is available to do this because I know there's a lot of things going on with that project. If I might, Commissioner, also I serve on the Arboretum Board, and the bathroom has been discussed for several years because the bathroom up there is locked, except for during business hours because there's no one to maintain or watch it. And I guess my part of, I think, the concern that I'm hearing is that this seems to be a new item. And so it has been a concern for years. And I guess my question would be, why was it not in the budget in April? And maybe we can get to that. It's definitely a need at the Arboretum, but it seems to be a new item. Charlie, did you want to ask? I was going to address the FEMA question. FEMA grant money is used for flood mitigation. They will not permit it to be used to build a bathroom. That's fine. I'm good for it. I'm supportive. I just wanted to make sure that that wasn't somehow in that package. Okay, thank you. Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor, I guess I was going to ask you, based on your history, I remember the meeting where we gave them the opportunity to have the sewer line to go to the visitor center. And there's grand discussion at that time about the size of that line to make sure that there wouldn't be other development that would go on on the mountaintop, so to speak. Where would these additional laboratories be located? As you know, if you've been there, they have a port-a-potty right now. which apparently is so overwhelmed that it's nearly unusable at times. So if you go into the parking lot and head more or less toward the Children's Garden, it will be behind the trees over there near the Children's Garden, not in the open area but more toward the parking lot is my understanding. and is that have you seen the site is that what you understand and it's I also understand it would be a bathroom well depending on design but the original intent was it would be one that didn't have the doors you just they have them at parks and things where you just walk in and sort of wind around, but a basic bathroom. And it also, I might as well say this, I think at one point, you know, this year in the current fiscal year budget, I think the mayor used his salary for the arts. Do you remember this? Half of it. Yes, for part of the arts grant. And I think he had had some discussion with Marsha Ferris about using his salary for the bathroom. and she has reminded me of this. So I don't know if that's been in your discussions or not. May I ask you one more? Yes. There seemed to be some potentially contentious issue at the time, or at least during one of the conversations I was a part of, to do with cross-country teams or running teams coming in to change clothes or to do something there, and that was causing some sort of a problem. Would this satiate some of that, or has that practice been changed? That situation is gone. Okay. All right. It was worked out with the athletics folks at UK. All right. So it's no longer a real concern and hasn't been discussed, I think, for about a year. But I know the need for the bathrooms is huge. It's just, you know, do we deal with it as a late item or what do we do with it? Thank you. Council Member Myers. I guess a couple of points I'd like to make are to go back to the Vice Mayor a few meetings ago. Really, as a matter of policy, rather than necessarily to debate the validity of this request, the mayor is by charter required to present a balanced budget, and the opportunity to do so is passed. And so I think the conversation we ought to be having right now is whether or not we want to entertain new items that the mayor wants to put into the budget, or is this supposed to be late items? And, Vice Mayor, I know you asked that question before. And to me, that's really the issue here, is he already presented his budget. And so, you know, either maybe give them the opportunity to take something out to make up the dollar amount that this equals so that his budget stays balanced, or it goes to the bottom of the list with the other things that we're going to talk about when it comes time to modifying the budget. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It's my understanding that this was the third time that Marsha Ferris had requested funds for primarily the children's gardens restrooms. And obviously my constituents are probably the heaviest users of the children's gardens. and to be kind of blunt about it, the mayor actually forgot that it had been requested by Marsha Ferris and so it didn't get into the budget initially. And those things happen. We all, you know, I forget my car keys, religiously at least three times a week. it does happen it's a shame but it does happen in the process maybe the children's garden ought to be put in the partner agency realm where a link would have had some opportunity to take a look at that this was done somewhat outside of our normal process and But it's too late now. It's too late now in relationship to making a decision, a yay or nay decision on doing this. But for the future, whether there's a request for anything or not, we maybe ought to at least put them on the partner agency list. Thank you. This is actually not a bathroom for the children's garden. its bathroom for the entire Arboretum. I understand, but it's placed close to the government. And the Arboretum last year had 200,000 visitors from 40 states and 12 countries. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor, I guess my question to you, since you're on the Board, was this something that the Board discussed and was approved by the Arboretum Board? The Board has discussed this for two or three years as a need, and the Board has not taken official action to request it in the budget. I think that it's a huge need, because if you're ever out there after 5 o'clock, there's one porta potty. My question is, were you aware of this item? I've known about the need for years through the board. Yeah. So, I mean, maybe this is better something discussed during the individual council member recommendations rather than an administration late item. I think it will be up to the council. Yeah. Don't you? Yeah. And also during the comprehensive plan process, we created like a dashboard for other items. and maybe that might be a helpful mechanism here to maybe put this on the dashboard, not to do away with it, but maybe to put it with a sort of a list of items that we can sort of keep track of as we go through all the other items, because right now we don't really have an overview about all the different things that may be coming at us. So I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, I have a couple questions. One is, can you run through what the different adjustments are on the collective bargaining items? Because what I see here is a net increase in the budget for the police collective bargaining contract. Is that correct for this coming year? Reflected on this sheet, yes, it's a net increase, but these are only pieces, as I was explaining before. I understand. I understand, but the other ones are the same, right? The other items didn't change, so these items were different. Some were less and some were more than was anticipated. When you say they didn't change, they were similar from the assumption we made with the last, best, and final to the... There's a net increase based on your all's assumptions. In these items. Right. But not overall. Right. There's an overall saving. Can you help me understand what these items are? These items, I'll need help on the middle ones, but I know the 98.6 is, do you recall, they talked about the fitness incentive that they were willing, that basically goes away. That's the 98.6 decrease. The other decrease is the large amount, the 298,840, is for the personal use fuel. That's the fuel of some assumed savings. And then the others are a variety. Ryan is intimately familiar with those. Mr. Barrels, welcome. Thank you. I'd like to draw your, if we could recall the conversation we had last time. I think last time I was at the podium I spoke on this. It's a little bit hard to compare these two because of the way we budget versus the way we reported the savings to you. I'm just trying to understand what they are. I'm not trying to be critical of it at all. I'm just trying to understand what the – it's $400,000 or $500,000 and I'd kind of like to know what I'm buying. Exactly. So in terms of the savings, we budget, personnel, capital, operating. So in the personnel, the 6,000 accounts, the variations there are primarily the uniform and equipment allowance. So the 6,000 accounts throughout there, the uniform and equipment allowance. The 7,000 account is associated with vehicle fuel. And then also included in there is the fitness incentive that we talked about. So those aren't individual account numbers. Those are within a category personnel and within a category of operating. The point that I'm hearing you're getting at is there's a net ed, yes, and we talked about that last time. I just want to know what the specific items are. I don't want to get an hour and a hour. I'm just training incentive, vehicle fuel, and. . . So what's the $380,000? What is that? Well, again, it's a combination of those categories that are within the personnel count. That is personnel expenditure within a section in a department. In that number, there is uniform and equipment allowance, training incentive, and I'm missing the third. Do you have that sheet I had the other day? No, it was the other one that was showing. No, it was the one that was the one. But mainly those major personnel categories that he's highlighted for the additions. The two decreases were what I spoke about, the fitness incentive and the fuel. So the $380,000, the $153,000, the $140,000, the $116,000 are all combinations of personnel, equipment, uniform. That's correct. Yes. Okay. Thanks, Ryan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess what I wanted to ask, Commissioner, we've already, I mean, pages two and three encompass what we refer to, I think, generically as the general fund. Yes. And we've already passed, in essence, half of those changes by passing page two. If we pass the changes as you have outlined on page three, including changing that $2,800 to $28,000, the effective fund balance for the new year becomes $1,252,662? Correct. Thank you very much. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to go back to item 21. And sympathetic with the need for the bathrooms, but I think it may be inappropriate as some other people have said to have it on this late item list and I would move to strike it and place it on the agenda for the council items that we'll be discussing later in this process. So move. Is there a second? Could Mr. Kay repeat the motion? I'm not afraid I'm not hearing it. Remove it from the late item list because it's not a late item, it's a new item. And place it on the agenda for council items, specific council recommendations that we'll be discussing later in the process. This is 21. This is 21. Yeah, and I will personally see that it gets on the agenda. I think we just have one need to have a conversation about it, but it's not appropriate to do it now. So Council Member Myers has seconded that. Did I hear that correctly? The motion is to remove item 21 from the late item list and place it onto the council list for discussion. And that will be next week when we'll start discussing all of those. Okay. Now, questions or discussion about the motion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate the motion. I will support it as well. And it has no reflection on the arboretum or whether this particular item is worthwhile or not. But I think that it's certainly not like a correction or a numbers mistake or something that was overlooked in the budget. It is a new item to be discussed. And I think it is appropriate to consider that in connection with all the other new items that we're going to be looking at. So I appreciate Council Member Kaye's motion on that. To the motion, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I agree that we need to discuss it, and that's why I said earlier I didn't want to talk about the merits of the actual item, but whether it was appropriate to discuss it in today's meeting in this section of the budget discussion. So obviously I support it because I seconded it, and I look forward to having that discussion later. Thank you, Mayor, or Vice Mayor. Council Member Lawless. I certainly understand this sentiment, but given all we have to do and how much discussion there's been, and it seems like there's probably support for it, I say we just move on through. I mean, it's $125,000 that slipped through the cracks, and we sometimes get caught up in swallowing a camel and gagging on a gnat. So for that reason, I'd like just to go on and approve it. Any other discussion about the motion on the floor? Okay. All those in favor of removing item number 21 from the late item list and placing it on the council list, council recommendation list for discussion, say aye. Aye. You can log in. That motion passes 12 to 1. Any other questions now about page 3? Council Member Lane. Can we go back to item number 20? And my question, which I asked Commissioner of Public Safety, is if in the process of ‑‑ I'm addressing this to finance, though. Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't get off the hook that easy. No, my question is pretty simple. I was just wondering, in the process of evaluating the cost of the new collective bargaining agreement, if, in essence, you had some base numbers from previous years and then you actually projected the actual cost for the three or four years of that agreement going into the future so that you had a total cost for that year by year estimated? I don't have those with me, but we did provide a cost savings year over the life of the contract. year to year. Right. I understand that, but did you actually project the total cost of the collective bargaining agreement for a three-year period following the final year of the agreement so that we could just see it on paper what the cost will actually be based on the estimate? Well, you see that within the budget request for the. Well, we don't have a three-year forecast of that in the budget. No, we don't. I mean, we have the first year of the contract. Yeah, the reason I ask that is that, you know, most corporate entities, when they enter into some type of long-term agreement, they will do an estimate of the cost for the three-year period. And to me, that would be very valuable information as we vote on something like this to actually see what the estimated cost would be. The total cost, not just the estimated savings per year, because there are going to be some costs that will automatically increase. And so it's not a very meaningful thing just to say we're going to save a man here and a million there. It's going to be two man more in the third year, whatever those numbers were. But to really have a forecast of the total cost of the contract so we could put our arms around the whole number. I mean, we'd have to do it for the total budget for the future years of the contract. Obviously, the first year is reflected, or a portion of the first year really is reflected in this budget. But you see what my point is? We don't see all the minute numbers. We just are told there's going to be a savings of a man or a two-man or whatever it is. We don't even know the total cost of the contract. At least I haven't seen that number that I recall for a three- or four-year period. I think there's normally a three-year contract. Has this been longer than three years? It is four. That's what I thought. Okay. That's all I have to say, but I think it would be a very valuable financial tool to use. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, we've been down this road before, and your answers are very delicate. But the question is, is the administration going to provide the council the projected costs of this contract over the next four years? Because I'm not hearing a yes. And as I understand it, the numbers are so complex that they cannot be calculated. Is that a fair statement? At least without a great amount of work. You have a base budget, so you'd have to assume you'd make the appropriate changes that are in the budget. in the contract, then you'd have to make some other assumptions about how the other costs within the department would change over the course of the year. So it would take some time to do that. I think we worked through the cost at one point with you of that. This is sort of my heartburn over the whole process because we really don't know how much we're spending. Well, you have the proposed expenditure for the next year in front of you. You have the estimated savings for the out years based on the current expenditures. So you have item by item what we expend within the department. Help me understand what would be more helpful to you. I want four numbers. In 2012, it's going to cost X or one, and 2013, it's going to cost Y. 2014, it's going to cost Z. And I know that's hard to do, but you have to have some sort of estimates for this. I mean, I can't imagine that this contract was negotiated without any idea how much it's going to cost. But you have the base. You have the base as the current budget. You have next year's proposed budget as reflecting. But you're asking me to extrapolate future costs based on this sort of fudgy savings and things like that. And we're getting off topic, so I will save my fellow council members the trouble of stopping me. But I agree. It's just four numbers. So I appreciate it. and I look forward to talking with you some more about it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I certainly understand where you were going with it. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, I really hate to dial back to page two, but I dug in a little more deeply. Item number 11 helped me with what was put into the budget. Was his proposed salary put in at 75%? In the budget vacant positions, we knew what's put in at 75%. He came on board, so we're funding the difference equal to everyone else in government in terms of the percent of his salary. So his total salary is $141,000? I don't have his total salary. I just did the math, and that's what I come up with. Sir. Mr. Barrow? You're probably running the math on 75 to 100, but there's actually two variables other than the percent funding. When we budget a vacant position, you don't know where HR is going to grade them out salary-wise. So there's a scowry scale, and our salary scales are pretty wide. We budget a certain percentage in that salary scale, and then we budget at 75%. Well, likelihood, given his experience, he came in higher than the average in that salary scale, and then we also had to fund him at 100%. So there's two variables there. So the 75 to 100 is probably not a good estimate at this point. Okay. But we can get that information for you for what it is. Please do. Thank you. And if I understand correctly, all vacant positions are funded at 75 percent, correct, for budgeting purposes? Some of the public safety classes. Or not. Some of the public safety classes are a different percentage because of timing. But most vacant positions are funded at 75 percent. And don't forget, we assume a 97.5% overall because of turnover and transition that happens naturally each year. Okay. Thank you. And, Commissioner Mason, are you wanting to say something? You're whispering in her ear. His salary is $110,000. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In following up on the Council's action on item number 21, was there a similar determination to be made on item 22? Is this an item that is indeed a late item or a new item? There has been no determination. I was going to ask the question, is that a new item? Okay. Thank you. And that's kind of where you're going, isn't it? What's the word? Again, from our perspective, it was a timing issue about those recommendations, and when we didn't have the information before and we received the information and included it. I think, though, on the council's side, we're looking at this rather technically at this point. It was not in the mayor's proposed budget. I would move to place item 22 in the same category as item 21. So Council Member Farmer has moved to place to remove item 22 from the late item list and place it on the council list for discussion. Is that your motion? Yes, ma'am. And Council Member Myers has seconded it. Is there discussion about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, so 22 will be removed and placed on the council list for discussion. Any other questions about page 3 or motions? Motion to approve as amended. Second. Council Member Martin moved to approve page 3 as amended, which removed items 21 and 22, and Council Member Ellinger seconded to approve the motion to approve page 3 as amended. Any discussion about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes, 13-0. Now, so that completes the general fund. Plate items, correct. Technical question. Yes. The mayor's proposed ending fund balance that I gave you, that total did include the golf revenue adjustment, and I'm not sure you've taken action on that, so. I believe the first, did we not, oh, right, we haven't approved the revenue yet. Right, I just wanted to make you aware that the 1, 2, 5, 2, 6, 6, 2 included the golf revenue. And so then we would need to subtract the $125,000 for the Arboretum and the $25,000 for Partners for Youth, correct? Correct. That's $150,000. So what's the final? We're adding it, actually. We're adding it to the ending fund balance. I mean adding it. Yes, thank you. So what would the total be now? If you assumed the golf revenue, it would be 1-402-662. Did I do my math right? Yes. Oh, she's changed it. Excellent. I did it in the old-fashioned way. Okay, great. Did you do that in your head, Commissioner? Okay. Okay. So, Council Members, that, given the inclusion of the golf revenue and the exclusion of items 21 and 22. That leaves the current fund balance at $1,402,662. Any questions about that? 662. One more time, please. Okay, $1,402,662. No cents. Zero cents. So, okay. Now, can we, Council Members, are you, we have not yet approved a revenue number, but are you comfortable leaving page three and moving on with the Commissioner? Yes. I think we'll do that. Commissioner? Thank you, Vice Mayor. There are only two items in the Urban Service Fund that are corrections. One, the first item, number 23, increased funding for the financial audit, again, that is distributed throughout several funds. This is the adjustment that needs to be made in the Urban Services Fund. And number 24 is a similar for the property tax financial audit that hits the piece that hits the urban service fund. That is, these are the only two changes proposed to the urban services fund, and they're both corrections. Council Member Stenet has moved approval of page 4, and Council Member Henson has seconded it. Is there discussion? I see none, but I have a question. Item number 23. Is this increase in funding for the audit, I'm curious about why we did not know how much that was going to cost, or did the auditor run into more problems, or what's the situation with this item? We just, not additional problems, to rest your mind. Okay, good. We did receive a more current bill. We do a contract for up to a certain amount, and this is adjusted per the latest information that we received that we didn't have at the time. and they're, again, they weren't appropriately distributed through all the funds. Okay, and it's kind of like a change order in a way. I'm sorry? Kind of like a change order. Yes. In a way. And is the same true for number 24? Sheriff, yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Very good. I see no other questions, so all those in favor of the motion to approve page 4, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Page 5, item number 25 is the same issue, but it's for the library fund, $1,000. Do I hear any motions or are there any questions? Council Member Farmer moves approval of page 5, and I think Council Member Stennett has already seconded over there. Any questions about the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Page 5 is approved. On page 6, item number 26 is a revised revenue estimate for municipal aid funds. And this is we actually receive from the state. When we proposed the budget, there was an estimate from the state for municipal aid funding. We got the actual final estimate between the time that the mayor introduced his budget and now, and we're proposing to increase the revenue estimate based on the actual final number from the state. Move approval. Council Member Lane moves approval of page six. Council Member Kay seconds. Is there discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Page 7, number 27, is the same. We've got the revised estimate for county road aid program. Any motions? Move approval. Council Member Kay moves approval. Council Member Lane seconded. Page 4, the county road funds. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. Page 8, number 28, it's just the change in a department number for a project. It is no net change to the budget. Move approval. Second. Council Member Martin moves approval. Council Member K moves second. And any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? That passes. The next page, I believe, is page 9, the Sanitary Sewer Fund 4002. Item number 29 is, again, correcting an error for a salary for an individual, which was an increase. 30. There are several line items that speak to each of the debt service payments. There was a change in when the debt service payment was required to be paid, so we're actually in tandem with this presenting to you a budget adjustment so that we can pay the debt service this year and take it out of next year's budget. That's number 30. So again, you'll see a budget adjustment that will be a net change that comes before you tonight, actually, I believe. Number 31 relates to 35 and 39. And this is all, you've spent a lot of time speaking with Bill O'Mara and Susan Bush about the change in our user fee collections. and there has been a lot of work put into a public information campaign. There is a lot of revenue at stake here for this government. We have – this is a request to correct the funding for the remainder of the needs for next year for that campaign. It relates to items not only 31 but 35 and 39. Again, $60-plus million. We want to ensure that this community is aware once they get these separate bills, the importance of paying them, the importance of us getting our dollars to continue this important work for this government. So this is 31, 35, and 39 all relate to pieces of that out of the individual funds because, as you know, we're collecting fees out of three separate fees. Bill's giving you a lot of detail, but he's here. Be glad to answer any questions you have on that. 32 is correcting a, again, it's in tandem with item 18, which you've already approved, correcting the mapping for positions moved from Commissioner of Planning to Planning Administration. So you've already approved the flip side of that move, and it's a net, no net change. So that completes the sanitary sewer fund late item list. Do I hear a motion? Council Member Farmer? I was going to ask a question first, if that's all right. In relation to number 31 for the $243,000, Does that pertain to the item on our docket tonight for $200,000? Or is that a different group of money to add to? It's more than the $240,000 because it's also adding number 35 for $55,000, $250,000, and $39,000 for $26,000. and it is a different we have go ahead bill the councilmember farmer yes sir the item is on tonight's uh agenda right is the second year renewal of the program that was started last year in environmental quality right the item that is before you number 31 on sanitary sewer fund and other two funds would be in addition to that and that actual amendment is uh on next week's new business item if you all approve the budget so between the two it'd be over 400 000 worth of advertising about two different subjects two different subjects we i don't want to speak to the first one because there's an environmental quality about doing the right thing and and increasing the water quality in the campaign. That's the renewal, and that's what's on the docket for tonight. This is totally about same fees, same rates, different bill. Please pay it. You've always been paying it. You've been getting these services. You're getting it delivered a different way. Don't throw it away. Please pay it. It's for the good of the community. Different message. I move approval of page nine. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Do I hear a second? Council Member Ellinger seconds. The motion is to approve page 9. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes unanimously. Page 10, Commissioner. Page 10, item number 33 is to correct. We still had some expenses related to parking garages, and so we needed to decrease that fund because of the change with parking garages. So moved. Council Member Lane moves approval. Council Member Farmer seconds. Is there a discussion of the motion? All those. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, again, a question. concerning the Phoenix garage footprint now, and I understand it's going to be black topped. It looks like there's a, at least by driving by it today, it seemed like there wasn't much activity there. But does that just automatically go to the parking authority because it was not included initially? No, that's retained by our control. Okay. That's fine. I just, I guess, are they not going to put parking meters in there? Or is there going to be a monthly parking, or do you know how that's all going to work? Employee parking. Employee parking. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, you're welcome. Any other questions about the motion or discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Page 11. Thank you. Page 11 is the water quality management fee, and there are three items. Number 34 relates, again, back to an earlier item that you corrected, the correcting the salary for the environmental inspector. It's the water quality portion of that individual's salary. 35 is the education outreach for billing services that we just spoke about. And number 36 is the reappropriation for funds for two projects that will not be completed within this fiscal year. So, again, those dollars have been prior. Those dollars are there. They're just being reappropriated in the next year for these projects. All approval. Council Member Kay moves approval. And did I hear a second? Council Member Stenet seconds to approve page 11. Is there any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say. Oh, hold the show. Council Member Lane. Just a quick question on the, it says increased funds for educational outreach. Can you, do you know what that's about? That's the item that we just spoke about that Bill O'Mara just talked about, the user fee change, the billing collection. Okay. So that's an education. I got you. Thank you. Yes, that's one piece of it. There are three pieces. It's already a motion on the floor. Yeah. Is there any more discussion about the motion? Okay. All those in favor of approving page 11, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Moving right along to 12. Commissioner. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The landfill fund, there's one correction, item number 37, which is the revenue estimate for the loaner box program was not based on the correct fee, the higher fee that was implemented. So it's an increased revenue of $90,000 for the landfill fund. Okay. Council Member Stenet. I just want to make sure the number you have for the revenue estimate, that's what we're going to collect next year through our billing process. That's not the fund balance. That's just strictly the revenue we will collect next year. That's the increase revenue, the $90,000. Right. No, I understand that. but the overall Archie number, is that the same as we collected this year? The $6.8 million? Is the revenue estimate, the beginning revenue estimate for landfill fund? Yes. Is it the same as it was in FY12, or did we decrease it some? We did decrease it because I'm getting back to the billing issue. So we have anticipated a lesser revenue. I'm sorry, in the revenue estimate, yes. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. I apologize. I wasn't. So we have made precautionary measures on estimating that. We do on all three. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Does anyone else have questions? Is there a motion about page 12? Second. Thank you. Council Member Blues moves approval. Council Member Kay seconds. Any other discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you. Page 13 is the expense side of the landfill fund, and Vice Mayor 38 is the second and last of the corrections from the original. So if you looked at the original. It's a revision. Yes. There was $70, and that was incorrect. $850 is the correct amount. So that's the only other change between the original late-item list and the revised. And that does relate to an item we've already talked about, the financial audit. And number 39 also relates to an item we've already discussed on the education outreach for billing services. Approval. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Kay, second by Councilmember Lane to approve page 13. Are there any questions or discussion? Actually, I wanted to ask one question. So the $615,930 fund balance would be the current fund balance in the landfill fund? That's not it, is it? What does that, what fund balance is that? Just the revenue? It's the fund balance. It's the $6 million. It's the fund balance at the end of 13, ending fund balance, the $615. Remember we have the $6 million. The previous page would be the current fund balance. Yes, and that $6 million relates to the landfill closure expenses, if you recall from. I have a question about that, but I'll save it since we have a motion about page 13. Is there any discussion about the motion on page 13? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes unanimously. May I ask my question now? Yes, that's now about the on page 12. So the landfill fund current mayor's proposed budget fund balance would be $6,925,030. Is that correct? No. What is the current fund balance in the landfill fund? I don't have that. That's understood. Page 12 is revenue budget, not fund balance. Okay. Page 13 is budgeted fund balance. Actual fund balance is a number we'd have to get back to you with. Okay. May I put my question to you to get to later about the landfill fund balance? It's my understanding the state has now paid to close the Raven Run landfill, and we had maybe $2 million set aside for that. So I'd like to have that discussion later to understand that. And then if we can go on to page 14, Public Parking Corporation Fund. Yes, thank you. a item number 40 again this the restructuring of the parking garages we attempted to get all those expenses out but this is another that needs to be reduced from this fund and then 41 you might ask why we would still have an expenditure since parking garages have transferred but we will still have an audit for the prior year and that's the appropriate piece of the audit for that fund Any motions? Council Member Henson moves approval of page 14. Council Member Kaye seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Page 15, the Extended School Program Fund, item number 42, relates to an earlier item that you passed that reduces the transfer from the general fund to support the extended school program and increases revenue for the extended school program to make that balance and operate within the fund resources with no general fund support. Any questions or motions? Council Member Ellingham moves approval. Council Member Blue seconds. Any discussion about the motion? All those in favor of approving page 15 say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. That was the revenue piece. The next page, page 16, numbers 44 and 45 is the expense side of that issue. We have a motion by Council Member K to approve 16, page 16. Do I hear a second? Okay. What's got it? Pardon me? It's the item. Page 16. This is the extended school program fund expense. It's 44 and 45. 44 and 45. Do I hear a second? No. Council Member Henson seconds. Any discussion about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. And then... Number 17 is really a balancing error that we are correcting. It's $180. That's to the point. We have a motion by Council Member Lane, second by, did I hear it over here? Second. Second by Council Member Kay. Can we debate this? To approve this $180 change. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That passes unanimously. And then finally, we have the bond projects fund. Yes. As we did last year, we did include the reallocation of bonds because it wasn't highlighted in the budget document. And for transparency purposes, this is the reallocated bond. proceeds as proposed by the mayor's budget. We would decrease funds in the streetscape project, which is complete. And there are three different accounts as it relates to the streetscape projects. And fund four projects. Provide the million dollars for the PDR program. Provide the $1,250,000 match for state funds for the Arena Arts and Entertainment District, to provide funds to park projects, $388,000, and to provide funds for the continuation of the radio, public safety radio project. As you know, you approved a budget last year that included significant dollars for the radio project infrastructure, and we're now moving into the purchase of the actual radios, and this goes towards that project. It does not complete it, but it does get us the additional funds that we need for this year to move that project forward. That does balance. It does expend all the remaining proceeds in that project. Okay, council members. Do you have questions? Yes, you do. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, thank you. The streets and roads funds, it's not that I have any difficulty with decreasing the streets and road funds, because I think I voted against this because of the financial problems the city was having. But help me understand, did we build everything that we were going to build? This is bond proceeds that were for the Streetscape project. And, yes, as I understand, the project was complete as design. Okay. We received a grant as well. So that helped us decrease the amount we spent because we all set that with some of the grant funds. Correct. Okay. So did we extend it all the way down Main Street the way it was originally approved? I don't have those particulars. Because you said we completed it. I'm assuming it was done as far as it was. It's my understanding. George. George is. Mr. Milligan. Thank you, sir. Everything that was originally designed in the Phase I was completed. Okay. There is still some existing bond money out. We are still doing some amenities work. Part of that is the grant money coming from the state that will be done this summer. and there is some additional work that's being done in Sheepside Park and additional amenities work on Main Street. Is there sufficient funds to get the weeds out of our little rain gardens? The ones on East Main were done yesterday. And we're still, there is on the rain gardens themselves, there is a contract that's administered by Water Quality that has just been renewed that will take care of that problem. So we built everything that we told the public we were going to build? Yes, we did. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Mr. Milligan, before you sit down, please, you said something that maybe Councilmembers, I know I would like to understand. Did you say there still is more bond or grant money for completing some things? Yes, there is. So in relation to Councilmember Martin's question, that leads me to think there are still things to be completed. The major construction portion is all completed. Okay. What is being done now is we're making it look pretty. Okay. We're making it look pretty. We're putting the benches in, the bicycle racks, and those items. And there are funds still already there available to do that. And how much funding is there left? I believe there's right at a little over a million dollars. That's not good. No. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Well, this is also for Mr. Milligan. Since you and I have shared a 24-7, 365-day-a-year, three-and-a-half-year life of streetscaping, So this isn't taking all the bond funds out. We were able to offset these funds. All of these funds came from bonds that were originally allocated for South Limestone, and we have left enough in the South Limestone bonding to cover the match that we're doing for the vine and limestone amenities package, which is the bike racks, the waste receptacles, and all of those items. In addition, we have left the funds in there to finish the items to be done on Main Street and the additional work that's anticipated to be done in Cheapside Park. So how much is being left in there? We're leaving right around a million dollars. I'm a little concerned that we're cutting it pretty close. I mean, I'm not sure what. We didn't get a grant for Main Street. We only got one for Vine. I actually have the Main Street money is already allocated in there. So I've got the Main Street money is ready. There's plenty of money for Main Street and the other bonds that are there. And also for Lime of Stone. Yes, ma'am. $750,000. We have $900,000. I mean, I know we're still looking at amenities and ordering and getting prices. We have some place in the neighborhood of $970,000 available for amenities. $750,000 of that is a state TE grant. Right. And $187,500 is our match to that, and funds are still there in the funds to cover that match. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just going to ask, have we talked to bond council about reallocating these bonds? Because these seem like bonds for street capital construction, and we're kind of using them for a lot of different things. Is that okay? We're not violating? No, they're for a public purpose, we feel. Is that how we generalized them when we did the streetscape? Yes. Because I remember one of the streetscape bonds we did specifically for, we narrowed it to get a grant, and the other ones we left open, and I couldn't remember which ones were which. We did look and the public purpose. Because radios and PDR are very different ends of the spectrum. Okay, good. Thank you. Are there other questions? Commissioner, I wonder if I know Jerry Hancock is here. Can you please give a little more detail on the $388,000, what parks projects those are? Please welcome. Thank you. Of the $388,000, $238,000 is for the building of a softball field at Constitution Park, and $150,000 is dedicated to a match program that Councilman Myers is working on for a skate park at Berry Hill. Okay, so those are the Constitution and Berry Hill projects, and that's what the total is. I'm sorry? That's in just those two projects? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you very much. Council members, any other questions before we deal with page 18? Would it be your pleasure to reallocate these as one lump sum or to go individually down the list? I have a motion to approve the list from Council Member Blue, second by Councilmember Ellinger. Now, is there a discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. Jeff can now go home. Okay. Okay. Now, Commissioner, thank you very much. Thank you. I think going through them in the manner that you did was very helpful. I'll ask Connie Underwood if she would mind to just give us a very quick recap before we go to our revenue so we know where we are. Thank you. Hey. So for the general fund, we're still at $1,402,662, and I will be taking the Partners for Youth and the Arboretum bathrooms and adding them to the council members' consideration for Tuesday so that that can come back up for discussion. In addition, if you like, we can put an item on about the council salary issue if you want to talk about it on Tuesday. Council members, would you like Ms. Underwood to put an item on the list to discuss council salaries? I hear a yes. Yes. I hear more than one yes. I mean, I can say that I was here when the ordinance was passed. Yes, you were. And I am aware of how it got to be there and why it is as it is. Okay. All right. I've heard several yeses. So if you'd like to talk about that, we can talk about that on Tuesday. So you'll put that on the list for discussion. All right. Very good. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And, Council Members, I think we need to go back now before, well, we can review our LINCS recommendations and our individual council recommendations, and then if we have some time, we'll go back to revenue. How's that sound? In your packet, LINC's recommendations start on page 22. And is there anyone presenting this, or shall we just move through it? And you also should have an addendum. Page 22 is the list prepared by Ms. Underwood, and it's entitled Council Link's Financial Recommendations Fiscal Year 2013. And our purpose right here is to review this. And we have, I think we've heard each of these once before when Link's presented. And I noticed that at the bottom of this list, Connie has added the golf revenue and the parks item there. Is there any question about it? So the total LINCS recommendations are $261,765. If there are no questions, then we will just do a review of Councilmember recommendations. And, Councilmembers, you should have pages 26 through 32, and then there was an addendum. We're not going to vote on these? Not today. Why not? We're here. Well, I mean, if we have time, we can. But we haven't accepted a revenue number, so that would be our first, to my way of thinking, we need a revenue number. And then we can see how we're going to fill it out. I'd like to do a review of Councilmember requests, and then if we have time, we can go back and start, you know, voting. Well, I'd personally like to go ahead and do it. I mean, we're here. We're on the page. So you don't want to review the council member recommendations? I mean, it's always going to come out in the end regardless of what order we go in. I mean, there's no specific order. Well, let's, council, what's your pleasure? So the purpose of today's meeting was to review all the requests, to go through the late items, approve those, and to approve a revenue number. and if we had extra time then to start approving link and Councilmember recommendations. I signed up to speak. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you. So then when would you then take up the Councilmember recommendations? Tuesday, if we don't get to it today. And, of course, we've added some items to the list today. I guess just from a let's get her done standpoint, we moved through the mayor's late items and made decisions on them. And I guess now we're looking for potentially a review of the latest recommendations to then, my assumption is we would, someone could tender a motion to approve them if they so desire. Yes. We have added items to the list. And I think that's quite possible today. I personally think we would be wise to accept a revenue number first. Otherwise, we don't know how much money there is officially. We always accept revenue first. Well, would that have been part and parcel of adopting page one of this? Do you want to make a revenue motion? I guess I'm working my way there. Yes, ma'am. I think. I mean, so is this. So then back to page one of the packet. It says that the mayor's proposed budget ending revenue estimate, I don't know if this number is still correct, $289,429,968? Or has it changed from that? That's correct. That added the Gulf revenue in. That was the purpose of that page? Yes. And we took no action on this page? We took no action yet on the revenue. Then I would make a motion to approve page one, that is the revenue estimate for the Mayor's proposed budget of $289,429,968. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Council Member Farmer moves and Council Member Lawless seconds that the revenue number used for the budget will be $289,429,968. dollars, and that includes the updated golf revenue. Is there discussion of the motion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. With that number, does that mean we would have a fund balance of 1.4, is it? Yes. Thank you. 1.402 and change. Thanks. Yes. Council Member Martin Thank you Vice Mayor Mr. Mayor Bill could you mind helping just walk us through since we're about to sort of set this in stone a little bit more help us understand the budget assumption the revenue assumptions that make up this number and this is sort of a big vote we're going to do can you just kind of walk us through that again Yes a moment for my memory to kick in. You mind speaking up? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was giving myself a moment for my memory to kick in. I made that presentation a few weeks ago. But we met with Ken Trotsky and his staff and worked on trying to peg some sort of forecasting model for our major two revenues, the withholdings as well as net profit. And if my memory serves, we assumed a 3% increase for the withholdings and 4% for net profit, if I remember correctly. I'll have to go back, but it should be on the page in the budget, so you can test me if you have that page there. Insurance. So let's run through the numbers real quick. We've got property tax. Flat. That's flat. We've got net income or net profits, I guess. Net profit, right. That was what? I'm sorry? I believe it was 4%. I don't have the book in front of me. Okay. And what was the other one? Withholding was 3%. Okay. And my memory is getting... The other ones are smaller, right, obviously. Well, they are. Those are the two big ones, yes. So we've had conversations in years past about how conservative these are in terms of how likely it is that we're going to hit these numbers. So in our assumptions in the last four years since I've been here, How many times have we missed our assumption on revenues? Every year. Actual has never matched budget. You're not making this easy. What? We've missed them every year. Yes. Good or bad? Some were up, some were down. As Dr. Trotsky says, as soon as you make a forecast, it's wrong because actual comes back. Well, all levity aside, how many times have we been short on our revenues projections? I think one. We were like. That first year in 2009. Yes. 2010 budget, I guess it was. Right. And other years, if you parse it out, we were saved by one-time revenues, sale of property, closing fees from end-of-year terms, that type of thing. I think it was 2009 that I asked you every week about that number. Last year we were above because we had a very strong fourth quarter, and we came and actually raised the revenue estimate at this point last year. Because this is really important, because if we miss this, obviously we're going to have, or I guess the council, since I'm not going to be here, but they're going to have a hard job in the spring. Yes, sir, and I would thank you for the opportunity. I would advocate for as large a fund balance as possible in the budget. So you guys feel comfortable about the projections? We feel we want to stick with the original proposed budget. That's not what I asked. Are you comfortable with them? Are we going to hit them? as close as you do with actual two budget. Bill, as always, thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Kaye. Bill, thank you, Vice Mayor. Perhaps more relevant, by what percentage have we missed either up or down? It's been within 1 or 2 percent, if my memory serves me. Okay, so in the last three, four years, you've been down once, and every other year you've been a little, you've been above estimate by a small margin. Yes, sir. So I'd have to check last year to see if my statement is correct. Okay. So from my perspective, that's a pretty good record, and that the number we're getting is really reliable, and I appreciate the work. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Does that include the year we had a $17 million audited fund balance? Do you remember? Well, I think that was not since you asked me in a four-year, I believe. No, this is not Mary Helen Casey days. That doesn't include those years. That revenue was going like this. Yes. Okay. I forget. I think that was 2002-ish. Could be. Somewhere around there. Okay. The dot-com boom, maybe? Okay. Thank you. There may be other questions for you. Council Member Martin? I'm sorry to ring in twice. I'd be happy to back out if someone else wants to talk. But I appreciate, and I appreciate all the expertise that you and Professor Trotsky and everyone else has gone into this. But I'm not going to vote for this number. I think I'm just extremely uncomfortable about the economy. And so it's with due respect, because I've been very impressed with you and all the expertise you bring to this, but the world is a very unsettled place right now, and we have no idea what Europe, China, and other things are going to impact they're going to have on us right now. And so I think the number of 4% revenue increase is a little more than I can handle at this point. And I realize all the assumptions that go into it, and I know how much expertise has gone into it. And it's with due respect that I will not vote for that number at this time. But thank you. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion to approve the revenue as $289,429,968? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. Let's take just a hand vote here so we can no. I think we had more than one no. All those in favor? Ten, four, six, ten, eleven. All those opposed? All right. We have two no votes. Thank you very much. So that motion passes 10 to 2. Now, let's go back to our agenda where we have our review of LINC's recommendations and then our review of council member recommendations. and as we talked, the link recommendations are page 22 of the packet. The council member recommendations are page 26 and on the addendum, and of course we added some items to the council member list. So are there any questions, first of all, about the links page? And then are there any questions about council member items? I guess it might be helpful if I'm not sure who from our staff would want to work us through the council member requests. They haven't really been discussed at all in public. Who would be the person to do that? Connie Underwood. Council Member Lawless, did you have a question before Connie goes through the individual council member list? Wasn't there a motion on the floor to pass the links? No. Okay. Thank you, Connie. Okay. So these were the individual council recommendations that we received. I hope that I got everyone's. This was what I had talked to the aides and the individual council members about. The first item was from Council Member Ford, and it was to add $75,000 to the Summer Youth Employment Program to add 75 additional positions for the summer's employment that they work with. The second item was from Council Member Lawless And this was to do sidewalk repair and actually curb repair For the Woodland Park area on the High Street side And that was $31,000 The next item was something that I received that's co-authored From Council Member Farmer and Council Member Lawless This is to repave an intersection of High and Euclid, of High, Euclid, and Fontaine. And this would include High Street and Euclid Avenue. There's actually a drawing, a picture of this, if you would like to see it. This was $80,000, and we put this in the MAP fund for fundings based on the additional million one that was in the administration's late items. Connie, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I know a lot of council members are looking for this exact list, which they don't have. They don't. In the packet, what I think we have is different individual things. So does Mr. Schoeniger have that, or? it's just in a different form than what you're it's not in this form so it would be helpful to have in the original packet not the addendum on page 26 is council member lawless's request of $31,000 on page 27 is council member stennett's request and that goes through page 30. Then on page 31 is Council Member Martin's request. Page 31, excuse me. And then on page 32 is Council Member Ford's request. And then in the addendum, page 33 and 34 are Council Member Lawless, the combined Council Member Lawless farmer request. So maybe it would be helpful for council members to see the full list. I'm going to make copies of it. Okay, that would be great. And it doesn't yet have the new items on it that we added today, correct? Right. Yeah. Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought it was a miscommunication. I thought that I had sent that out, and apparently I did not. The other item that we have on our list is from Council Member Stinnett, And this was $175,000 for the stoplight at Pink Pigeon and Ali Sheba, which is apparently a very difficult intersection to get through and needs a stoplight. The next two items actually were on the mayor's administrative list and were approved. These were to reappropriate the funds for Rowland Avenue stream restoration and Cardinal Lane, Cardinal Laramie. And so those have already been approved. So those could come off of here. Right, and I removed the dollars for them because I put the dollars on the administration's list pending approval. Thank you. Council Member Martin's items were a debt service item, $4 million, for a five-year bond for road resurfacing, for engineering, creation of a trails and right-of-way project manager, for traffic engineering, funds for traffic calming devices such as speed bumps. That was $100,000. For sewers, a grant program for our homeowners at $100,000. For police and fire, he'd like to have a compensation and benefits study of our police and fire sworn, I believe, right? Employees for $100,000. The Corridors Commission projects was an additional $50,000. Engineering funding of the Cardinal Laramie stormwater issue, and this was on the illustrations list and has already been done. And the last item was debt service for $1 million in multi-use path money to connect Dogwood Park trails to the Harrodsburg Road pedestrian tunnel at Military Pike. And that's the last of the recommendations. They total $1,510,269 for the general fund, $255,000 for municipal aid, $100,000 for sanitary sewers, and the water quality has already been addressed. What did you say the total was for the general fund? One million? Five, ten, two sixty-nine. Five, ten, two sixty-nine. A million, five, ten, two sixty-nine. Now, the first thing is, Council Members, did all of your requests make it onto the list? Does anybody, is anything missing? Thank you, Mr. Schoeniger. Okay. In addition, the last item that I had was adjustment to some council members' cost centers. I've had council members who felt that their cost centers, the money wasn't exactly where they wanted it to be. We have some dollars budgeted in places that you never spend it. So we were going to try to clear those up, put dollars in place based on your actual spending habits. And I had several council members give me specific changes that they wanted to make to their cost centers for next year. The last item was to adjust for those districts who will either definitely have a new person coming in January or who have an opposition in the fall. We normally should have half of the money removed from the original budget and set aside into the second six-month section that was created so that council members would know how much money they had through December. And that wasn't done in the mayor's original budget, and I was suggesting that we do that as a late item so that it was cleared up before we move forward. There's no net change to the budget for either the cost center changes or this. It's just a movement of money from one place to another. And then you've added the bathrooms. Then I've added back the bathrooms for the Arboretum and the Partners for Youth, $25,000 to the bottom. Okay, very good. Thank you. Council members, questions about the individual recommendations? Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would go ahead and make a motion then to approve items 64, 65, 66, and 67. So moved. Second. That's on the first page only, and then we'll flip. So the motion from Council Member Stenet, seconded by Council Member Lane, is to approve 64, 65. The 64 is the Summer Youth Program. 65 is the Woodland Park sidewalk. 66 is the High Euclid-Fontaine intersection. And did you include 67? Yes, ma'am, but not 68 and 69 because they've already been done. 67 is the stoplight pink pigeon and alley sheep away. I would like to point out that if all the Council link recommendations and all the Council member recommendations are approved, you would at this point have a negative general fund fund balance of 647 to 66. But this motion is just for four of them. Yes. So thank you for pointing that out. Did you have a question, Council Member Ellinger? I just thought we'd probably go through the links recommendations first and see where we stand and then go back to the individual recommendations is how we normally do it. And that's the process I think we had put into place. This is kind of going outside of that, but we can always do whatever we want. But our normal would be to go through all the links, both those up and down, see where and then go back to the individual and see where we stand. That would be my recommendation. That is our usual process. No, not. To go through the links. Well, it's up to council members what they want to do. If you want to vote this motion down because you want to do links, you can do it that way too. But we are going to have to make decisions one against the other because we can't vote everything on this list and everything on the links list. as Ms. Underwood just pointed out. Council Member Stinnett, are you still on to speak? Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would agree with Council Member Ellinger. I don't know what we've always done, but we've had extensive conversations about the links. I would prefer to go back and take the links recommendations one at a time, approve or disapprove, and then know where we stand, and then come back to individual council members. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Blues? Yes, I'd add my agreement to that. We did the links recommendations first. I think they should take priority here. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Stemmett? Thank you, Vice Mayor. The reason why I make the motion so we can get some of these things off our plate is it all comes out in the same number in the end. And this is not pitting links against council, council against links. It has nothing to do with that. Each project stands on its own. That's why we vote on each one separately anyway. So it's going to come back to the same type of vote. We're not going to stop at the links and say, well, we're out of fund balance. We're going to stop. We'll always move on to council or vice versa. So this all comes out in the same number. So doing it now or later, it's the same vote. Any other discussion on the motion? Actually, I'd like to turn the gavel over to Councilmember Ellinger. Vice Mayor. Thank you. I'm going to vote no because I prefer that we deal with the links first, since all Councilmembers spent a matter of weeks putting input into those, and then we could see once we get through that list what our fund balance is. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. So are we saying then that the links, if we don't have a fund balance, then we don't care what the individual councilman recommendation is at that point. That's what we're saying by saying links have priority. It all still comes out in the final number. So there's no harm either way to doing this, but I went ahead and made the motion so we can actually do something today, take action, and move forward. Council Member Blues. Well, I misused the word. I didn't, by saying priority, I meant only in time. I didn't mean in terms of value or ultimate preference. It just seems to me it's the appropriate sequence. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Is there any other comment on the motion? Council Member Martin? Vice Mayor, in agreement with Dr. Blues, I think the appropriate motion here would be to table Council Member Stenet's motion until after the link recommendations have been heard. And so at this time, I'm going to make a motion to table Councilmember Stenet's motion until after the link recommendations have been heard. So move. There's a motion by Councilmember Martin, second by Councilmember Ellinger, to table Councilmember Stenet's motion until after the link recommendations have been discussed and heard. And that's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Well, if I might just comment, since it's been passed, that I think that none of us wanted to vote on the merit of the individual recommendations, and if we would have voted down the motion, I'm concerned that those recommendations may not have been able to be brought back. And so I certainly want to give full hearing to Councilmember Senators' recommendations on that. Thank you. Let's turn then to the links. That's again page 22 in your packet. And we'll work our way through them. Finance, Social Services, and Outside Agencies has recommended three, General Gov, seven, Environmental Quality, two, Public Safety, three, and General Services, one. And the total of all LINC's recommendations is 261,765,000. And so, Connie, remind me what the fund balance is. Okay. And if we're actually changed based on what we've already done? The revenue. Yeah. I'm sorry, can you? $659 is the total. Can you please repeat what you just said? The revenue was on this list, which made your total smaller, but when the revenue moved to the other list, it changed. the total here. So the total for council links is now $389,659. If they all are approved, the fund balance would be $1,013,003. Connie, they also did that with you. Yes, and I took value off as well. Okay, so the bottom line total all links is now $389,659. Yes, ma'am. And so if all LINC's recommendations are approved, please repeat the total for the fund balance. $1,013,003. $1,013,003. Yes, ma'am. Okie doke. All right, Council, that gives you an idea of where we stand. Are there any motions? Council Member Stenet is on the list. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Motion to approve items for the finance, social services, and outside agencies 1 through 3. So moved. Okay. Motion by Council Member Stennett. Second by Council Member Farmer to approve Carnegie Center World Trade Center and Lyric Theater expenses as listed in the links. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes unanimously. Council Member Stenet, are you still on? No, ma'am. Okay. Council Member Blues, were you knocked off or did you go off? Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. I'll make a motion to approve the general government leak recommendations. Second. There's a motion to approve by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member Martin, General Gov recommendations? Is there discussion of the motion? Councilmember Blues. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor. I was going to speak after this vote. Okay. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you. Could you remind me of the Council Office Restore the NDF at 75-225, what that is referenced to? Yes, sir. The 75-225 is restoring the portion of the NDF that we had cut back in previous years. So we restored that amount, and we took the credit that we got from the council office professional services area to offset that. So what does that put our individual NDF then up to? I'm sorry, did you repeat that again? Where does that restore or put each council NDF up to then in the cost center? In the budget, the full NDF amount was put in there, and there was a credit of about $5,000 per council members to take away part of the fund that was already the standard amount that was funded. So that's why it came up to about $75,000 because there's 15 council members. It's $5,000 per council member. Council Member Blues, are you on for this discussion? Okay. Council Member Ellinger, I'd like to pass the gavel to you, please. Vice Mayor. These are all lumped into one motion, and I do support many of them. I am not supportive of item number two, which eliminates the entire Council Professional Services Fund. And if you saw your list of uses over the years, there are many different things that this fund has been used for, In particular, when we have had facilitators for retreats and such, if we have need for temporary services, and I think it's very important not to gut that fund because it leaves the council without the ability to add any professional services, no matter how small they may be, throughout the year. So I am not going to support the motion, although I do support the Human Rights Commission items, the Planning, Preservation, and Development, the county attorney. I think that, and in fact, what I might just do since you have the gavel, Mr. Ellinger, is move to separate out item number two from the list and vote on it separately. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Dr. Blue, second. Any discussion on the amendment? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we'll bring that one out and vote on it separately. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. So the motion on the floor is to approve 134567 in general government. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a question about the Human Rights Commission. Were they a partner agency? Are they considered a partner agency? That agency is a requirement by state statute. Okay. That's correct. And they're very, very short on funding. Yeah, I was aware. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor of approving the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed? Same sign. That motion is approved unanimously. So, Council, shall we go ahead then and take number two, which is eliminating professional services funds from the Council office? Council Member Blues. I move to restore the $42,000 for the professional services fund. Second. There's a motion by Council Member Blues, second by Council Member Beard, to restore the $42,000 in professional services funds to the Council office. Discussion? Now, Council Member Blues, are you still on? Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. When we went through this in the link, it was discovered that half of these funds were used for a task force that didn't need it, and the other half was for temporary budget analysts. And I'm just curious of why 42,000. That number's just shot in the air. Why not just break it down to 10 or 5,000 so we do have some working dollars? I don't think we need the full 42, so I won't support that motion because I think it's an arbitrary number out there. I think we can be as conservative as possible and still go $5,000 or $10,000 and be sufficient. Thank you. Councilmember Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That was a similar question I had. By history, what would be the average cost with the $42,000? Ms. Maynard, do you have that list with you perchance? Council members all received it about, I've forgotten when that was, a week or 10 days ago, the uses of the professional services funds. maybe we can get an answer for you is there someone who might retrieve that list and we could maybe go on did you have something to add uh mr cmar this last time is my understanding there was the budget analyst and then there was ten thousand dollars for the design excellence consultants do you know an average council member henson wondered about an average i would say if we could go back like the last five years or something and see what our average has been but i think that that list came out to us about a week ago and i didn't bring mine with me i missed it um could someone do you think you could get the connie i mean i I think, Connie, you did that list, didn't you? Okay. Ms. Henson, would it be all right with you if we move on to the next question, and then we'll come back to that? Councilmember Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I remember seeing that list, too, and it seemed like maybe 10,000 or so here and there, but I think if we've got the actual numbers, there's no use for me to comment on that. So I'll give the microphone back to you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm afraid $5,000 or $10,000 is just as arbitrary as $42,000. If, in fact, we are going to dig out some historical numbers and come up with a more educated guess, I would support that. It probably is going to be somewhere in the middle. Thank you. You're welcome. We do have a motion on the floor. Council Member Farmer? Council Member Lane, were you wanting to speak again? Not at this time, thank you. Not at this time. Council Member Farmer? Please remind me of the motion to which we are speaking. The motion is to restore the $42,000 for professional services to the council office. I have a question about that $42,000. I guess from the conversation that's gone on here, some of it's used for our budget analyst, and some of it's used for other work in the council office that has to do with what? County's bringing the list. I think there have been facilitators for meetings. There have been the design excellence. Was that a consultant, did you say? It's quite a number of things were things that the council wanted to do. Various and sundry things to do with the council office. Yes, and council work. And council work. So potentially, some of these funds could be used for a retrofit of the gentleman's room on the fifth floor to accommodate the posteriors of the 21st century people who are here. And if that is part of this, I am most in favor. It's my understanding that that could be used for that and just for the ladies on the council. several men on the fifth floor have come to me and expressed the need for some changes in the men's room. I have not been on a tour yet and I was advised that I should not go in there. One man described it as vile so I think there are some problems in there and I am sensitive to the fact that we need to fix those problems. And that will take some money. So in answer to your question, yes, that money could fix the men's room, potentially. Now, every man hasn't complained, but a lot have. So I know it's an issue. I know it's an issue. Anyway. Vice Mayor, I agree that we should flush out some of these financial issues. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Lane, is there any other comment on this motion until we have the list to come before us? Council Member Lawless and then Council Member Stenet. Well, I can't resist but to ask if maybe Rocky could have a colt trolley run them out to the Arboretum, but for their new bathroom. There's no bathroom after hours. But anyway, it seems to me that we've used this money like when we used the $42,000 was when we had a decrease in staff and we kind of were in an emergency situation. So I would support maybe lowering it to $10,000. and if we have a crisis, we're always having change orders during the year that we could go back for more, but I'm okay with whatever, and if they need their bathroom redone, maybe there's just too many men on the council and they use it too much. Council Member Stunet. I would just say, so we can move forward, I would like to make a motion to table this until we get that information that Council Member Henson requested and then come back to it. Thank you. Council Member Stenet moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded to table the motion of restoring $42,000 to the Council office. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That item is tabled. And we have approved the other general government items. So do I hear? Pardon me? the general gov total would be I'm so sorry Council Member Beard can you use your microphone please $120,625 I think it goes over $200,000 oh I'm sorry I thought we were pulling it out at this point we've tabled the motion to consider the 42,000, to restore the 42,000. So that's 100. Yeah, thank you, 204,625. How does that work? I'm sorry. At this point, are there any budgeting people in here? Did you hear that? Add them all up. At this point, the $42,000 is not in the General Gov recommendations. The motion that was tabled was to restore it. So it added $42,000 to that $162,625. So are we okay now to move on? And, Council Members, watching our time, it's 535. I don't know if you need a dinner break, but we can, at your pleasure, either take more motions or Council Member Blues. I move to approve the Environmental Quality and Public Works Link recommendation. Second. Okay. Council Member Blues moves and Council Member Lane seconds to approve Environmental Quality and Public Works, which is streets and roads, and Environmental Quality Public Works Valley View Ferry. Any discussion? We've already done Valley View Ferry. Oh, we already did the Valley View Ferry, didn't we? Thank you, Commissioner. So actually, we can strike that out of the thank you. Do I have a second to amend? Okay, to amend the motion to remove the Valley View Ferry. Is that your motion, Council Member Martin? All right. All those in favor of amending, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Now, the motion then is to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000. Yes. We have, okay, are those of you who are logged in needing to speak on this? Just me. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is a question that comes to someone who grew up in Massachusetts. I want to know what the basis for reducing the SALT budget was. Was it just based on this last year, which was relatively mild? Or what was the conversation in the link about that reduction? Environmental quality, Council Member Blues. That was based on the fact that the salt barn is full, that the supply of salt under the tarp is full. We have a full supply of salt. So our thinking was that we could reduce that number and still have an adequate supply for next winter. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Ellinger. That was a similar question I had. I'm trying to remember the numbers from what we had this year compared to last year, and I was thinking we were actually adding more to this year than we had last year. Is that correct? In the mayor's budget, it was $3 million. I'm sorry? $3 million. No, no. I think it was $1 million, and this is reducing it down to $800,000, I believe. That's right. Did we have only $600,000 in the year before, or did we have $800,000 the year before? Commissioner? And I think another piece is, isn't our salt barn full? Yeah, and I think that's my point. I think we were actually adding more than we had the year before, and we were reducing back to where we were. In fiscal year 11, we had the actual expenditure, $999,700. Okay, but what is for fiscal year 12? What do we have budgeted? Well, we have budgeted a million, but we're not spending that. Okay, so we have budgeted a million for 12, so now we're bringing it down to $800,000 for 13? That's the late recommendation. If we do this? Yes. Okay, but we also have a full barn. I think it's relatively full barn. Okay, thank you. Other questions about this item? Vice Mayor? Vice Mayor? Yes. Are we discussing this that was just passed? We have a motion on the floor to reduce the SALT budget by $200,000. Okay. Has Sam waited on this? I don't think. Is Sam here? I don't think he's here. The general services is okay. Streets and roads is okay with this. Can the link speak to that? You discussed this at length in the link in the link report out. We discussed the salt budget with the director, but we did not come to that conclusion during that discussion. So we have not heard from Sam on this issue. This is the SALT budget for SALT itself. For those asking. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I thank the link for their work, and I respectfully like to call the question on the motion. All right. Second. The question has been called. All those in favor of calling the question, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, we had a few yes votes on that. It passed. So all those in favor of reducing the question has been called, Mr. Maloney. It's too late. I'm so sorry. And so all those in favor of reducing the SALT budget by $200,000, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So we have one nay vote. Councilmember Martin. So that is 12 to 1. That motion passes. Council members, we have 20 more minutes, and do you have motions? Vice Mayor. Someone said let's eat. Council Member Stennett. I was going to make a motion under public safety to approve items 1 through 3, so moved. Second. The motion by Council Member Stennett, second by Ellinger, is to approve the code enforcement item, 125,000 for nuisance abatement, and the assistant director, 109,840 for corrections. Any discussion? Vice Mayor? Yes. I move to amend to add the number one on parks. I guess we can eliminate that since we've already approved it. Is that right? Now, the motion on the floor is about public safety. I know. I was going to amend it. I'm sorry. I thought you said parts. I was going to amend the motion. The next item in general services, so my question about my amended motion is, is that last item already taken care of? It is. It is, so I don't need to amend this motion to add it. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The motion on the floor is to approve the public safety items and Council Member Lawless. The number three, provide funds to hire an assistant director for corrections. I'd like to know, we have five, basically five assistant directors out there at this point. They're not called assistant directors. Right, they're called something else, and then they get a stipend, and then they turn around three times. Is Commissioner Mason still here, or does anyone know, anyone answer to Councilman Lawless's? Glenn. Glenn Brown isn't in the room, I don't believe. He's just outside the door. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Underwood. I would like to mention that that last item on parks maintenance would still need to be addressed. You've addressed recognizing the golf course revenue that was going to pay for it, having it addressed the expenditure of it for maintenance. Thank you. Commissioner Mason, Council Member Lawless has a question about the $109,840 to hire an assistant director for corrections and some related questions. Yes, ma'am. That seems to be a new position. It's a new position. And we have the five whatever they are. Bureau managers, this is a person directly reporting in between the Bureau commanders and the director. It can be a right-hand person for the director. So, I mean, it was my understanding that the five were going to be, so he'd have five right-hand people. So they've each got their own bureau to take care of. This is an assistant director to deal with. I guess I'm uncomfortable because I noticed that, again, on the mayor's report today, there's seven corrections officers resigning again, and there have been. Those are a variety of different reasons. Right, but every single mayor's report has had, for the last couple of months, has had four, six? I mean. Well, it takes time to correct and to improve atmosphere. Okay. Well, I guess I'm a bit uncomfortable adding a position at this point at that level when and we don't have corrections officers to maintain the staff, and so that was my question. The corrections officers, we just had a graduation a week and a half ago. Those people were out on the floor working. We had a new class of, I believe, 32 start this week. So those are being filled on an ongoing basis now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Council Member. Our acting vice chairman. I'm going to have to agree with Council Member Lawless. It looks to me like there's some empire building going on, to be perfectly blunt about it. And that, I assume, also includes the fringe benefits number that $109,000 and some change, which is a pretty hefty price. I don't understand these five individuals you referenced versus this individual or this position. What exactly would the five report to this fellow and then this fellow reports to the new director? This assistant director position that's being proposed to be created will be the executive officer for the director, a right-hand person that he can bring in. We'll do an outside advertisement, which will also include internal candidates, but looking at creating a position for the director to have somebody that can assist as they go forward. And the dollar figure is the total package benefits and everything. I assumed it was. Okay, I'm probably not going to support this myself. Thank you. Dr. K? Thanks. I've run another up. Appreciate it. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, could you come back up for a second, please? We just learned, I think, earlier that the director of the jail's salary is around $110,000. Is that correct? That's correct. And I know that at the last minute they asked the link to recommend an increase in pay, and we were not willing to do that. So my question is now that... I'm sorry. I don't understand that part. at the last minute? I believe when our link was meeting at the end, a request was made to us that we recommend an increase in salary for the director of the jail. I can show you that if you want to, if you want to see that. The question I'm asking now is that if he's making $110, if this proposed position is going to be $109 and some change, is that going to create a problem later on? I don't anticipate it would. Okay, so if we approve this as 109, no one's going to come back in here in a few months and ask us to increase the salary for the director because of? This is total package. This isn't salary. This is benefits and everything. The 109 is? Yes. I think the salary range tops out at about 80. Okay. So when we heard the salary? 82. Okay. That's the range. Okay. So thank you for that clarification. The 110, then, for the director, is that salary only? Okay. So we're good to go. We're not going to have any questions later on on that, right? No. Okay. Thank you, sir. Council Member Lawless. I'm sorry, Commissioner Mason. One of the things that was brought to us about the first two were Kramer and Dabney, wouldn't be majors. They'd be whatever's under a major and then get a stipend for their, because they were making less than somebody that they were supervising. and then there were five in total that are called majors, but they're not majors. They're... Bureau managers. That was all the leveling of this structure there. What is their salary? I'm not sure. And with stipend and all that? I don't know those figures off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you. So, again, I kind of go to that question of then are they, you know, so I just can't support this at this time and would like things to settle down out there and get some consistency before. So thank you. Is there any other question about any item in the motion? Council Member Kay. Yes, I had a question about the revenue-neutral issue on mining and quarrying. Is that now presently imbalanced in that we gain revenue or that we're losing revenue with the present operation? Council Member Myers chaired that link, but if I recall in our link there, it's not revenue neutral. The government is paying. So this would be to ensure that the cost of building inspection, to building inspection, is covered by the fees? Yes. Thank you. Any other questions about public safety items? Council Member Henson. I wanted to, I'm not sure, we have a motion on the floor to approve all of public safety, correct? Yes, to approve public safety items. And I just wanted to say, I felt like after, through the public safety links, that from meeting with Director Ballard, I felt that it was very important to have a deputy director or assistant director, as this says, at the detention center, especially in case of his absence. There's just so many issues that have occurred at the detention center, and in an effort to try to curtail that in some way, I felt that it was very important through his conversation with us. But I just wanted to pass that on. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just going to make a motion to separate item three under public safety out from the other two for our voting purposes. Motion is to separate out item number three under public safety for an individual vote. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Ellinger seconded it. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Item three is separated out. and so the motion on the floor is to approve 1 and 2. Any more discussion on the motion on the floor? Council Member Martin. I have a comment about item 3 and I'll wait until that comes out. All right, thank you. Any discussion about the items 1 and 2 in the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Items 1 and 2 are approved. And now we need a new, I guess we have separated out item number 3. It's a motion pending. Yes. To approve the Assistant Director of Corrections, Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm going to support this position. We heard from the new director of the jail the other day, and I think I took a similar position there. The thing that government tends to do is to pull the wings off our new inductees. And I hate to sort of squash the initiative of our new jail director so early in his tenure here. clearly we have distressful things going on at the jail just large numbers of people quitting but at this point I think I want to give our new jail director the benefit of the doubt to give him the resources he feels he needs to get that ship put back on a good course And I think that he knows the situation at the jail better than I do, certainly. And I want to support his efforts to try to put things right over there. So I hope my fellow council members will support that as well. Commissioner, do you have any comments about that? I do. I appreciate it, Councilman Martin. On a daily basis, and I'm not exaggerating, I get an email from someone at the jail that has worked there a while that is extremely complimentary of the environment. Yes, we still have people leaving, but our attrition rate is still lower than the state and national average. At the end of this month, we will have the correctional officer's dining room opened up at a revenue-neutral situation for the city. and there have been a number of other initiatives that he is taking charge of, and I agree, appreciate what Council Member Hansen said. He expressed it very well, his need for a right-hand man, a right-hand person at that facility. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome, Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to kind of echo the last couple of comments. In general, we're not adding positions, but the jail has clearly been a huge problem for the city and a huge expense over time. and I would like to give the new director as much support as possible with the hopes that he and his staff can begin to make the kind of changes that will stop the turnover that we've been seeing and give them the opportunity to make other changes in the jail. So I will support the motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have to agree. You know, we looked at late last year and early this year whether or not, you know, what type of management structure we should have in the corrections facility. And we determined as a government that it ought to be a director run the jail. And I think that we need to support the director that we've hired in every way possible to give them every opportunity to be successful. And, you know, I chaired the link. I think he made a very strong case for wanting to be able to bring somebody in from the outside. that he can fully vet and trust and believe in to do the things that they need to do and to help him get done the reforms that he wants to make. And I think the last time we were here in these chambers, he brought some reforms in that I liked, and I liked the fact that he took the initiative and that he showed that leadership. So I hope that the full council will support him wholeheartedly in the effort that he's making here today. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Not to support having an assistant director. We've got over 1,000 potential inmates in there, and we're spending probably around 30 men a year to operate the jail. I think to cut the management of the jail at this time would be inappropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. If there's an assistant director, will there still be a need for the five bureau? At this point, yes, for the administrative structure that they've got established. And as all things go with government, we can reevaluate as time goes on, but for the time being, yes. So this will be a civil service or a? Yes. Or a whatever? It will be a civil service position. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council members, the motion on the floor, seeing no more speakers, is to approve item number three under public safety and assistant director. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Opposed. We have one no vote, Council Member Beard. And that motion passes 13-1, I believe. There are 14 of us here. And, Council Members, we're going to need to end our Budget Committee of the Whole for today. We still have the ‑‑ okay. Council Member Ellinger has a quick motion. Motion to approve General Services. Second. Council Member Lane, we have a motion to approve the General Services Parks Maintenance Budget. Did you have a question on the motion? I'm trying to support that motion. Thank you. Very good. All right. Any other discussion on the motion for the General Services? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes unanimously. And, Ms. Underwood, we still have the council office item, and you'll bring us a new fund balance, I presume, on Tuesday. Correct? And an update. Council members, we scheduled our meeting Tuesday for 9 a.m., and it seems to me we may not have six hours of budget work left. So I'd like to suggest maybe an 11 o'clock meeting, which will give us four hours to discuss Councilmember items and the Council budget item. Councilmember Martin. Vice Mayor, if we do that, I would appreciate the Council's allowing me to go early rather than later, because I have to leave at noon on Tuesday to drive to western Kentucky. I think I brought this up before. I remember that. I know this is a work day for you. You have some obligations in the morning. So if we do, I hear a motion about changing the time Tuesday. We had a motion from Council Member Myers, second by Council Member Kay, to change our budget meeting Tuesday to 11 a.m., and we will put Council Member Martin's items first on the agenda, if that suits. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed. All right. We have, if the mayor will, I don't know, the mayor's in the room, would he allow us? We've been in here since 3 o'clock. Could we have a five-minute break? All right. Thank you very much. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? The meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.