# Budget & Finance Committee - September 23, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 23, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3462 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3462?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-09-23 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 5,441 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Budget & Finance Committee met on September 23, 2014, at 1:00 p.m., with Ellinger presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, which included approval of the August 26 Committee Summary and the Economic Development Performance Measures. Two informational presentations were provided: the Monthly Financial Report and the Lyric Theater Audit. The committee took four votes during the meeting and heard nine public comments. One agenda item, Items Referred to Committee, was deferred for future consideration. ## Attendance **Present:** Ellinger, Stinnett, Gorton, Kay, Ford, Beard, Farmer, Scutchfield, Mossotti, Henson **Absent:** Clarke, Lane **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of the August 26, 2014 Committee Summary** [timestamp: 00:04:02] A motion by Farmer, seconded by Mossotti, to approve the August 26, 2014 Committee Summary passed by voice vote. All members present voted in favor. **Removal of Economic Development Partner Agencies from the Agenda** [timestamp: 00:31:20] A motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Gorton, to remove Economic Development Partner Agencies from the agenda passed by voice vote. All members present voted in favor. **Motion to Remove the Activity-Based Costing Item from Committee** [timestamp: 00:36:04] A motion by Gorton, seconded by Kay, to remove the activity-based costing item from committee failed by roll call vote. The vote was 5 in favor and 4 opposed. Members voting in favor: - Ellinger - Stinnett - Gorton - Ford - Beard Members voting against: - Kay - Farmer - Scutchfield - Mossotti **Adjournment of the Meeting** [timestamp: 00:37:43] A motion by Farmer, seconded by Gorton, to adjourn the meeting passed by voice vote. All members present voted in favor. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial items requiring appropriation and contract approval. **Courthouse Maintenance Services Reimbursement** An appropriation of $136,000 was approved for reimbursement to the Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts for courthouse maintenance services. This funding covers essential upkeep and operational expenses for court facilities. **Rupp Arena Planning Phase Expenditures** A contract valued at $4.6 million was approved for the Lexington Center Board to cover planning phase expenditures for Rupp Arena. This funding supports the initial planning and design work for the arena project. ## Public Comment Several council members raised questions and provided updates on various agenda items during the meeting. **Franchise Fees and Utility Payments** Vice Mayor Gordon sought clarification on franchise fee timing and was informed that higher-than-budgeted utility payments resulted from actual collections exceeding historical averages. [timestamp: 00:07:42] **Contract Processing Delays** Vice Mayor Gordon inquired about delays in contract approvals during the summer recess. Staff reported that some contracts, including those for the detention center, experienced processing delays but were expected to be resolved within a month. [timestamp: 00:10:57] **Nonprofit Partner Performance Measurement** Council Member Sani asked how the committee would measure return on investment for nonprofit agencies that do not generate monetary returns. The response indicated that performance is tied to agencies' stated scope of work and quarterly reporting requirements. [timestamp: 00:16:34] **Audit Process and Partner Input** Council Member Clark inquired about partner agency input into the new reporting form and follow-up procedures. Staff confirmed that partners had provided input on the reporting form and that Kevin Atkins reviews reports before sharing them with the council. [timestamp: 00:19:12] **Annual Reporting Format** Council Member McKay suggested implementing a rotating annual roll-up report for agencies to present a consolidated view of their quarterly data. Staff indicated this format could be considered in future years. [timestamp: 00:21:58] **Lyric Theatre Audit** Council Member Ford supported the independent audit for the Lyric Theatre, noting it would build community trust and support fundraising efforts. Ford suggested delaying the internal audit until after the external audit is completed. [timestamp: 00:28:04] Council Member Clark emphasized that the audit represented a positive step to recognize progress at the organization and reinforce its solid foundation. [timestamp: 00:29:45] **Solid Waste Task Force** Council Member Stenet announced that the solid waste task force would reconvene in November to review updated data, including the 2013 CAFR and new director input, to revise their cost model. [timestamp: 00:32:57] **Wellness Center RFI** The CAO confirmed that the RFI for the wellness center concept had been reviewed, with a final meeting scheduled for the following week and a full update expected before an RFP is issued. [timestamp: 00:34:31] ## Contested Items **Removal of Activity-Based Costing from Committee** A motion to remove activity-based costing from the committee's agenda resulted in a split vote, with the measure failing 5-4. The disagreement centered on whether the item should remain under committee review or be removed from consideration. Those supporting continued review of activity-based costing prevailed, citing unresolved data needs as a reason to maintain the item on the agenda. Council Member Lane specifically advocated for keeping the topic available for further examination, and this position secured the support of a majority of voting members. The close vote margin—with only one vote separating the two sides—reflected genuine division among committee members regarding the item's readiness for removal and the adequacy of information available for decision-making. ## August 26 Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:04:02] The committee approved the summary of the August 26, 2014 meeting. Ellinger presented the summary, which had previously been approved at a work session. The summary was presented to the committee as informational. **Outcome:** The August 26 Committee Summary was approved. ## Monthly Financial Report The committee reviewed the July 2014 financial report during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:04:32]. Key speakers included O'Mara, Cook, and Lueker. The report highlighted a $3.7 million surplus for the period. This surplus resulted from timing differences and higher-than-budgeted franchise fees. Personnel and operating expenses came in under budget, primarily due to delays in contract approvals that occurred during the summer recess. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action required from the committee. ## Economic Development Performance Measures [timestamp: 00:13:45] The committee discussed the implementation of a new quarterly reporting form for economic development partner agencies. The form was designed to track outcomes that are directly tied to each agency's specific scope of work, establishing a framework for measuring performance and results. **Key Discussion Points** Council members Scutchfield and Atkins led the discussion on this agenda item. A central theme of the conversation was the importance of accountability and transparency in how funds are utilized by economic development partners. The committee emphasized that partner agencies should be able to clearly demonstrate the outcomes and results achieved through their work and the resources allocated to them. The quarterly reporting mechanism was presented as a tool to ensure that economic development efforts could be systematically monitored and evaluated, with results tied directly to each organization's defined responsibilities and objectives. **Outcome** The committee approved the new quarterly reporting form for economic development partner agencies. ## Lyric Theater Audit The Lyric Theatre board presented an update on the auditor selection process. Paula King and Bruce Ali led the discussion on the status of identifying an external auditor for the organization. The board reported that a Request for Proposal (RFP) process had been conducted, resulting in four proposals from potential auditors. The selection process was ongoing, with a decision expected by October 15. Once an auditor was selected, the audit itself was scheduled to be completed by year-end. In addition to the external audit process, the board noted that internal audit work had been authorized but had not yet been initiated at the time of this meeting. The item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action or vote required. [timestamp: 00:23:05] ## Items Referred to Committee The committee reviewed several items that had been previously referred for further consideration. [timestamp: 00:31:20] **Solid Waste Cost Model** The solid waste cost model was discussed, with plans to revisit this item in November for continued evaluation. **Activity-Based Costing** A motion regarding activity-based costing was brought before the committee. The motion to proceed with this item failed. **Wellness Center RFI** The committee received an update on the wellness center Request for Information (RFI). An updated report on this item is expected to be provided soon. **Future Reports** The committee noted that additional reports are anticipated on the following topics: - AOC reimbursement - Lyric audit **Key Participants** The discussion involved Stenet, Lane, and the CAO (Chief Administrative Officer). **Outcome** The items under this agenda section were deferred, with several scheduled for continued review at future meetings. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the August 26, 2014 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed: Removal of Economic Development Partner Agencies from the agenda - **Motion** — failed (5-4): Motion to remove the activity-based costing item from committee - **Motion** — passed: Adjournment of the meeting --- ## Full transcript . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. We have a quorum. It is one o'clock and we'll be good. We'll go ahead and begin our September 23rd budget and finance committee. I don't think the commissioner's here, but we are in good hands here. Rusty, if you would go ahead and. Actually, let's go ahead and do the first one. We have any questions on the committee summary from August 26th. Do I have a motion to approve? We have a motion by Council Member Farmer, a second by Council Member Masotti. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. I was opposed. That passes. Now we'll go to the monthly financial report on page 5. Good afternoon, everyone. Commissioner Romero will not be here today, so Elizabeth and I will cover the presentation. I'll cover Commissioner's slides. The unemployment rates through July and August are at Kentucky at 7.4 percent. Fayette County is 6.4. Lexington Fayette MSA is at 6.5. and the U.S. through August has dropped down 0.1% to 6.1%. The next slide is a three-month moving average of the rates. Our economic indicators through July, as you can see, compared to prior year, the unemployment rate for Fayette County was flat at 6.4% compared to prior year. Through August, our Fayette County permits are up to $1,529 from $1,411. New business license is slightly down from $218 to $213. Home sales is up to $1,021 from $1,009 prior year, and our foreclosures dropped from $52 in August last year to $25 this year. Moving on to the top four revenues, If you recall last meeting, we had a variance of about $2 million. We were below budget due to timing differences. As you can see by this slide, we fixed those timing differences by getting those deposits in the month of August. We were $3.7 million above the August budget. Taking a look at the August 2014 year to date compared to the budget, you'll see that we are $1.7 million ahead of budget through two months of this fiscal year. A million of it's in employee withholding, which I still think there's some timing differences in there. The other way, so we may catch up a little bit on that. And our franchise fees up $750,000, and that is not a timing difference. That is where a couple utilities have actually had payments come in higher than what we budgeted, which is based on our historical payments from those utilities over the last couple of years. Comparing August 2014 year-to-date to August 2013 year-to-date, we are up $3.4 million. Employee withholding is up $1.6 million, and franchise fees up $1.6 million. And I will mention on this one for franchise fees, there is a timing difference in the comparison because August 2013 is missing a $900,000 utility payment that we received in September that will typically be received in August. So if you take that into account, we're actually up about $2.5 million over prior year through the first two months. And the reason you don't see that timing difference in the budget is because we flatten that out in the budget process to show payments in each month for each of the utilities. The last slide I have is the information-only purposes. It's the nuisance abatement and lien collections. At this time, I'll ask, are there any questions on top four revenues? Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to go back and be sure I understood what you said on page 10 about the franchise fees not being a timing difference. What's the? Yes, against the budget. For example, when we did the budget, we would look at the historical amounts. So we would have budgeted, say, $900,000 for Utility A, and their payment would actually come in at $1.2 million. So they are actually collecting more on their side, which in turn is us having higher revenue. Okay. So do you expect that to last for every quarter? No, unless we have a really bad winter. Because if you recall, last year our utility payments were high because the winter was so bad. So we budgeted an increase in franchise fees, but not a significant increase. So if our utility payments come in higher than kind of what we budget, because we take those, you know, the averages to create the budget, we could have some bump up in it. But looking through the first two months, that's actually a good sign in case we have a mild winter. So our actual budget will be a little high later on. Now, the farmer's almanac, which is usually right, says we're going to have another bad winter. Absolutely. I have seen that. Somehow the farmers know. So, okay, I appreciate that explanation. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Go ahead, Rusty. That's all I have if there's not any other questions. If so, I'll turn it over to Elizabeth. Welcome, Elizabeth. Thank you. Okay, I'll pick up where Rusty left off. Dealing with the other revenue sources that we have, most of the variances can be explained by timing differences yet again for these categories, starting with other licenses and permits and looking down. There aren't any significant trends that we're seeing at this point, so there's nothing really statistically significant to mention. And it leaves us with a total revenue variance through August of $1.5 million. Looking at the expense side, actual to budget, you will see some large variances in personnel and operating, but we tend to be trending pretty close to our budgeted assumptions for the other categories. For personnel and operating, after meeting with the divisions in our monthly budget meetings, our assumptions on these is that this is due primarily to the council summer recess where approvals of contracts and approval of probationary employees couldn't be approved in your absence. Also on the personnel side, some of our positions were budgeted to begin in the third quarter of the fiscal year, and the budget assumption did not take that into consideration. So our budget payment of personnel for some of our newly created positions assumed that they would be starting in July, which was not what's actually going to be taking place. Yes, Vice Mayor? Do you have a question? Vice Mayor. I do. Okay. So going back to this being due to the council, I thought that normally during our recess, most of the divisions try to get to us ahead of time so we can pass before we go on recess. And certainly some divisions were. There were a couple of contracts related to the detention center that are of some significance that did not get to you before you went on break on their contract medical, some of those contracts that are still processing through. So we believe that all of this will work itself out within the next month or so. Not a true delay. Things just didn't get through the pipeline quite as they have in prior years. Okay. So they would have been expected, would they have been expected to come to the council before we went on break, but there was some kind of slowdown? Either with the contract themselves, nothing of any significance, but we've already seen them in the pipeline, so we expect those to all even out. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. So looking at the rest of this slide, this brings us to a change in net position of $6.3 million actual to budget. Looking at revenue current year to prior year, this slide is showing us a $3 million variance comparing August year-to-date 2014 to August year-to-date 2013. This is really timing variances again and the increased franchise fee payments that Rusty had mentioned. On the expense side, current year to prior year, this you will see returning very closely to August of last year with only a $600,000 variance. This reinforces the idea of the timing differences that we've been experiencing, and we expect that all to wash out. At the bottom of the slide, you see our change in net position, taking into account revenue and expenses, comparing year to date, August to August, is a $3.6 million variance. And it's still very early in the year, obviously, to predict anything. So we expect by the end of this quarter, moving into the second quarter of the fiscal year, we'll have a better idea where we will be ending FY 2015. and with that I will turn it over and ask if you all have any questions for Rusty and I I see none we'll pass it back to Rusty thank you very much are we done we're good any other questions here seeing none we'll move on to the third item which is the economic development performance measures and councilmember sketchfield did you want to start this I think Kevin Atkins also was going to speak on this issue. All right. Welcome. Thank you. Well, we had submitted all these to you all for your packets. What we tried to do this year, last year, you know, we had a standardized form. It was pretty much just a financial form, and it was the same reporting for each agency, but it didn't really get into the core of what council had appropriated money for those groups to do. It was a good first start. It had never been done before. Council Member Clark was involved with getting that going, so it was a step in the right direction. But what we tried to do this year was take it the next step further. So we actually want to thank Commissioner Mills. we basically took the social services reporting form and adapted it for the economic development partners, where we took their scope of work that they said they were going to perform throughout the year for the funding and posed the questions based on that, asking them to do that quarterly. I want to thank Council Member Scotchfield for her help in reviewing those forms with me before we brought them to the partners. So what we did was try to create a form that would give you all a better indication on how the LFUCG funds were actually being expended and kind of show you what the partner agencies were doing on a quarterly basis. Councilor Sketchfield. Thank you, Chair. I think this is kind of, we don't want to create entitlements where people feel like if you all looked at some of the reports that came in, we weren't getting a lot of information. The fact is, if we are taking taxpayer money, thinking that we are going to create economic stimulus from it, we need to make sure that these partners that we're placing faith in, they show us the return on investment. And so I think this is getting down to each one of these organizations the specific things that they say they're going to get back to us. I think what we need to do as a council is stay vigilant in making sure that they report back to us and not just, you know, rubber stamp. We need to make sure that they are doing what they say they're going to do. Thank you. And, Kevin, thank you for your work. Thank you. Council Member Sani. Just a quick question. I know a lot of these are nonprofits, so what do we expect of them? Because they're not obviously going to return any kind of monetary investment back into the community. What kind of, I guess, what kind of measure are you going to do for that, for those agencies? What we did, and I think maybe the downtown Lexington Corporation would be a good example. They're not necessarily involved in, let's say, like Commerce Lexington, They're not involved in day-to-day economic development recruitment or retention. But they are involved in what we call the quality of place, whether it's Thursday Night Live, some of the other downtown events they hold. So in their scope of work, and I don't have that in front of me down here, but they told us what they would do for their allocation. So the questions in your packet for them relate to specifically what they said they were going to do with the money that they were requesting. Okay. So fair enough. So they're eventually going to come back to you for your oversight, or how is that going to be done? It comes back to me. We review it, but we also forward them as they come in to Paul so you all will also have access to those forms. Okay. I know it's difficult to quantify these because they all have different missions, and obviously that's important that we have varied agencies doing that, but my concern is that everyone's treated fairly because that's been a problem in the past. And if we can at least try to honor that, that would be a good way to start. And I can say the partners we've talked to are a lot more comfortable with the form this year because they do kind of, in one word, tell their own story. Right. Right, and I know a lot of times after these agencies have met with you all, they come to us sort of on the outside of the curve and say, look, we weren't funded. Can you help us? And I'm not sure that we should give them that avenue. I mean, I understand everyone has their mission and wants to go forward, but I think in order to be fair and equitable, we just have to stick to one kind of a process to continue to do this. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. And Kevin, thank you. I really like this, and obviously I have had some investment in it, but this is really good. And I wanted to ask how the partner agencies felt about their form and how much input they had. I think you kind of answered that, actually. But I'd also like to, if you could speak to that, but I'd also like to ask, when we get these reports, who reacts to them for us back to the partner agency if we have any questions? Whose job is that? Okay. they actually did have some input into the forms. We talked it through with most of them before we put the final touches on them. And, in fact, we had a conversation, I guess it's two weeks ago now, also at the periodic meetings that came out of the 13 budget link. We're continuing those, so we had the conversations about, okay, it's almost time for those first forms to be filed. So they're appreciative of this. It's a little bit easier for them because they can answer specifically what they're doing, and they can tell their story to you all on a quarterly basis when maybe they're not appearing before you. They can do it in writing. And what was the last part of the question? Just then what is our reaction to the report? Is there a follow-up? Yeah, we review them in our office and do ask questions. We send them to Paul. So I'm going to assume that Paul feels free for you all to either ask directly of them or he could contact us, either one. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Making sure I push the right button. Thank you, Chair, again. I think we definitely are at a good start with this. I think, you know, I feel comfortable. I'll move to remove this from committee after this today. But I ask that we take a look at it every year to update it and make sure that we're getting the information out of the forms and out of the reporting that can help us move forward and make sure that we are getting the ROI on the investment. This is something also council, our budget analysts, can take a look at these forms and be able to review. They're going to have the financial background to be able to tell these things. And, you know, there's a few of us that could probably do that, but I know I don't feel comfortable reviewing that to the degree that someone with that background. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you. And I just might, in addition to that, say if you all have suggestions for questions throughout the year, we can go ahead and ask those as well. But they would also help us as we start to think through the format we would use for next year. Thank you. Councilman McKay. Thank you, Chair. this actually just occurred to me as I was looking through the form, so I don't know if it was given any thought, but was any thought given to an annual roll-up for each agency and then possibly a rotating reporting requirement? So not all at once, but it might be useful once a year to have each of these agencies come and say, you've got four quarterly reports, here's what it looks like on an annual basis, and then this committee could have a little bit more input onto that. Any thought given to that? Would that be useful? I hadn't, but that's something we could do. I will say that their purchase service agreements with the city require, upon the call of the chair, up to two presentations per year if the council so desires. But, yeah, back on the annual side of things, I think we could take a look at how to best do that. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Seeing no more questions, Kevin, thank you. Thank you. We'll move on to item number four, which is the Lear Theater audit. And this is put in from General Government Link, and I will ask Harry Clark, Harry, if you would introduce this one, and then we'll go from there. Thank you, Chair. And I think the folks from Lyric are here, and our budget length asked for an audit with some help from our folks and also a long-term plan that would give us some indication of where we were going. And so I think they are here to report, and so we'll let them do that. If you would, introduce yourself. Okay. My name is Paula King. I am the treasurer of the board of directors for the Lyric. We are here to report on our audit that we are in the process of attaining. We actually sent out the request for proposals in August. We got them. They were due back on September the 15th. We have received four proposals. At this point in time, our subcommittee is meeting this Friday to determine which one will be the best for the Lyric. and then we in turn will present that report to the full board at our October meeting. So we hope to have an engagement letter by October the 15th, actually, and the audit should be everyone has consented to be able to complete this by the end of December. So as soon as we get the report and the report is given back to the board to review, then that report will be available for the public as well and as you all. good thank you Paula and chair I'll turn it back to you for question thank you councilmember Clark vice mayor Gordon thank you mr. chair Paula thank you very much and I also want to acknowledge Rashida Alameen the director of the Lyric and I just wanted to say I don't really have a question but I so appreciated in our link when we met and brought this up, your openness to doing this. I think the Lyric Theater has, you know, just for want of a better analogy, it's experienced growing pains like so many organizations do. And I think that all of you have been really open to looking at the best practices and making it even better. So I just wanted to thank you while you're here. And I'm I'm really glad to hear the progress on this. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. I think Bruce Ali is here, too, Bruce. Mr. Ali, did you want to comment on this at all? Because I think you're all going to have some kind of input on as the year progresses. Yes, Chair, I just wanted to point out that I appreciate the steps that Paula and the Lyric are taking. I have been approached a while back by Sally Hamilton and Glenda George about perhaps internal audit, also doing an audit of the Lyric. Sounds like they're pretty far along in their process. if the desire is for them to take that route and get a financial statement opinion, I think that's a good route to take. The Office of Internal Audit has been authorized by the board, as Council Member Beard could attest, back on the 16th of this month for us to do an internal audit of the Lyric as well. That could include looking at expenditures and collections, looking at the business process, probably something similar to what we did with the MRF. but it would be different than what you would get with a CPA who is doing your standard traditional financial statement audit. So I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about it. I think a financial statement audit would serve well if that is what the council and the Lyric wants. Perhaps at some later time, if the council wished it or if the internal audit board wished it, we could go back in and look at Lyric from a different perspective. Again, similar to what we did at the MRF. So that's really all I have to say about it, unless CEO Hamilton has any comment about it. I think we have some council members. Council Member Ford, did you have a question for Mr. Salee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two points I'd like to make. I wanted to echo what Vice Mayor Gordon mentioned in regards to the growth over at Deliric. I, of course, represent the council on that board, and much progress has been made. I think we're very fortunate to have Rashida in her role, and personally, Paula, who, for most of the council members, remember her when she was our grants director here. So she's doing a great job as far as leading our financial team. And we welcome, I think I can take liberty to say on behalf of the board, we welcome the opportunity to engage this audit. And we have a pretty good schedule to get that done. I think it will also help Deliric in regards to having an independent financial audit to continue to build the community trust that we've built and we're building day by day. And I think it will also help in fundraising efforts because it will help extend further confidence to folks that we want to invest in the Lyric. Secondly, I don't know if a review of Bruce's shop in internal audit at this point in time would be productive. I think that welcome perhaps after we engage in our independent audit. And again, always would be welcoming if independent audit so chose to come forward. But at this time, not to have too many cooks in the kitchen, it may be best that we go ahead and just get our independent audit done. Acknowledge whatever we may need to. And every audit has opportunities. to address some things and we kind of build and go from there. The MRF was a whole different situation and so I don't think we have that level of issue at the Lyric. So thank us again and thanks to our team at the Lyric for taking on this challenge. Thank you. Council Member Clark. If I just may add, when we reviewed the Lyric in the budget link, But it was very clear to us that great progress was being made, and we need to make that very clear. We saw really good things happening, and I'll simply reinforce what Council Member Ford said. This is a work in progress, obviously, and the fact that we can ask them to do an independent audit is good not only for us, but for them and can show the solidness on which the group is built and how the board is acting. So I want to make sure that this is a positive thing and not a negative thing. It was not a negative thing at all. It was a very positive thing in recognizing the progress that the group has made. So I want to make that very clear. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I guess hearing some of the comments from council members, where does that put you, do you think, with the board? What do you think your obligations are at this point? Well, the board simply, we brought it to the board as a special request because it had been brought to us by the CEO and also by Glenda that we may need to look at it. Certainly, we don't want to go in the same time as public counts would. And what we can do is one avenue, one possible avenue, is we can revisit with the internal audit board after the public accountants have done their work and then the board can assess at that point whether they still want us at some future point to do an internal audit or whether they just want to drop it from the plan that seems like a logical process I would go on that path any further comments from council members seeing none we will move on to the last item thank you mr. Sally thank you all for coming is the items referred to committee and I know Council Member Scutchfield had made a request for a motion. Council Member Scutchfield? I'll go ahead and at this time remove the Economic Development Partner Agencies from our agenda as long as I think Kevin had said review it on a yearly basis. We have a motion second by Vice Mayor Gorton. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. All's opposed. We'll remove that. Any others? on here um mr schonger once we go through these and real quickly if we could and see where we stand on all i'd be happy to the first one the solid waste cost revenue and tech structure that relates to the the waste management task force that council member stend is chairing the second item uh where do we go yeah vice mayor so i think we need maybe a public a little bit of a vetting of this, I'm on this task force, but I'm concerned that it was formed in early 2011, and I guess I just would like to know from Council Member Stenet, we were waiting, I know, for a while to have the reviews done, and then waiting for the tax season, and the tax season is over. And so what is the next step for this and when do you foresee us meeting again on the the first issue the task force councilman stent thank you chair and thank you for that question we are actually scheduling a meeting to come up here in november to begin our work again as i said at two previous meetings we just hired a new solid waste director we wanted to give them time to get on board as well as a new commissioner. And we were without one for several months. So that was part of our delay, as well as the audit from the 2013 budget, which we were just presented to as well, the CAFR. And we'll actually have another one, hopefully here in November as well, to use the data so that we can go back and review and redo, actually, our model to present to council early next year so they can vet it before the property tax rolls back around. Thank you. And I know you're leaving as well, so we can make adjustments to that as well, but we'd hope you'd stay on it and complete the work and be an ex-officio. Thank you, thank you. I'm sure she's looking forward to that. Mr. Schoeniger? The second item, the activity-based costing from Council Member Lane. I'm still waiting to get some feedback from Council Member Lane on that item. the wellness center and lease. This is something that Council Member Stenet referred earlier this year. I think he's probably ready to... Council Member Stenet? No, we need to keep it in here because there is a RFP out for information, so hopefully we'll be able to present to the committee here soon. I see CAO shaking her head, so could you come up to the mic real quick and give us kind of what our time frame is on that, please. I think we originally said November. Yeah. We did issue an RFI, request for information on this, and we have gone over those proposals. In fact, I had a meeting yesterday and are going to have a final one next week. So we now know basically what kind of costs are involved if we went to this wellness center concept. So I think before we issue an RFP, we're ready to come back and discuss this issue now with many more facts in front of the council, whenever it pleases the council. Sounds good. Okay. Any other questions for us? Thank you very much. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gorton. Yes, I wanted to go back to the issue of activity-based costing. financial efficiency. So this has been in committee three years. Do you know what we're waiting on? We had a presentation on this. Can we remove it from committee? Or is there something else? I know Council Member Lane wanted to keep in committee, but I'm not sure what information we're... You can always refer it back if you really want. You know, any item, we've discussed this in our committee of the whole about how items seem to languish in committee. And I'm wondering if we could remove it, and then if there's something else we need to talk about, he can always bring it back and refer it back. I mean, I make that motion. I second. I have a motion and a second by Council Member Kay, and I have discussion. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. being that the person who put in committee is not here today and that it doesn't hurt anything to leave it on a piece of paper why don't we wait and hear back from uh mr lane as to whether he wants to do anything further with us before we take it out thank you he has the option put it back in so that i understand where you're coming from but and we could talk to him in the interim but i think we were going to talk to him in the interim and it's been here so uh any other discussion all those in favor say aye all those opposed could you set the screen to vote please all those in favor press aye and all those Oh, there you go. You're safe. It fails five to four, and we'll leave it in. And in the interim, we will speak with Council Member Lane and see where we're going to move with this. The other three items? Yeah, AOC, the Administrative Office of the Court Reimbursement Policy, heard last month, and Commissioner Reid is going to bring some information back later in the year. And facilities and fleet professional services increase and the Lyric and Charles Young maintenance budgets, they will be ready for next month. Commissioner Reid and his staff will report. And the last item you just heard, the audit for the Lyric. Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn? We have a motion second. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, we stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.