["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] ["Pomp and Circumstance"] 205. And the bell has tolled, and the bell tolls for thee. So if you can take your appointed places, we can begin the meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee for January the 29th in the year of 2008. And the first report that we've been eagerly awaiting is the report from the Commissioner Coe regarding a statement of revenues and expenditures for period ending 12-3107. And I hope she will give us a prognosis about what happened as of June 30th, 2007. Well, let me work backwards here. No, I do not have a firm carry-forward number yet for you from 2007. I think I told you last week we need about another two or three weeks. Most everything, except, well, I think everything but the revenue side of the audit has been turned over to the auditors. So we are making progress. The auditors are making progress. Unfortunately, we have now pushed them into their tax season. So we're not really sure exactly when we will get an audit. But our goal is to get everything turned over to them and to get this carry-forward number resolved. With that, I think you have a copy of the revenues and expenditures report that I shared with you last week at either work session or council. I can't remember which. But I think the alarming thing for us right now is while you can look at the percent collected and the percent used against 50% of the year when we would be under on both and actually a little bit ahead of under on the revenue side rather than the expenditure side, but it's the things that are kind of within those numbers that we're seeing that kind of give us some reason to have a little concern right now. One of the things that we looked at in our revenue reports when you break this down a little bit further is that the withholdings were budgeted to increase from last year about 4.8%. And right now, if you extrapolate where we are through the rest of the year, we're at about 3%. Net profit is budgeted to increase over last year by 5.5%. Right now, we're down 10%. And insurance is budgeted to increase 7.8%. And we're essentially flat. So there really is no, there's no good news in those numbers. Much like it was portrayed in the paper last week, I don't call this a crisis. It is reason for concern. And with that, the mayor has reinforced his proposal that we not hire any new employees. We do have a few areas in government where it's essential to replace people as they leave, but just those that are considered critical and vital are being filled right now. John Cubine and I are taking a look at where we are in the spending pattern with some of the programs that were funded, that were kind of standalone and you could figure out exactly what the program was going to cost. And we're taking a look at those for the 2008 budget. And next week, we'll be making some recommendations to the mayor on some things we probably need to hold on that are budgeted in the current year, but haven't made significant enough progress that we might not feel the crunch so badly if we just held on those a little bit. So we are taking what we see into consideration as we move forward. But let me tell you, on the revenue side in particular, yes? Do we have an extra copy we could? Sure. We need a red light here. I'm sorry, I thought you were going to take this. An extra copy we could put on the Elmo so everybody who's watching can see what you're talking about. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. As you dig into our revenue by each tax or each license, we don't find good predictors. The first quarter is not a good predictor of the end of the year. The second quarter is not a good predictor of the end of the year. And much of that is because of the seasonality of some of the things. But seasonality aside, there's still concern for the numbers right now. Clearly, as we go through the year more, I mean, when we get the January numbers, we'll have a little bit better understanding than we have right now. But for now, we are concerned. And clearly, the national economy has slowed and the state economy has slowed. And there's just absolutely no reason to believe that we wouldn't eventually feel that. We hope that our slowdown will not be as drastic as some of the other governmental agencies that are more dependent on spending in that one of our big ones is the payroll tax. And we are blessed with governmental entities that employ a lot of people in Fayette County schools and the University of Kentucky. So we're hoping that we're going to see a softening, but not a bottoming out. But we'll just be watching it very closely as we move through the year. I'll be reporting to you monthly. If we find something mid-month that we think is worth sharing, we'll share that with you too. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. OK, thank you. Can you enlarge that in any way on the Elmo so we can see at least the things on the right-hand side? What's on my right and what's on your right? Yeah, that'll do it. I guess we can't see the headings. Oh, well, that was a good try. Questions? Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. Can I get a couple questions for you? I realize you're still not comfortable with telling us an exact figure on the 2007 carry forward. What we're most interested in, really, is do you foresee a surprise either direction there? I really don't. I think the 13-5 is probably very close to where we would be when we were still running reports out of the system, that we were very close to that number. And we haven't seen anything in this rebuild that would be significant enough for us to back away from that number. The other thing that we have going on right now, and I think I might have shared this with you last week a little bit too, but we were at the end of a meeting and didn't really have time to talk about it. When we converted in STARS, there were a lot of old purchase orders that were active in the old system that were rolled into the new system. Some of those were for active projects, and we're finding out now some of them aren't. So there are, I think, about 3,400 lines of old purchase orders that the folks in the Division of Purchasing are working their way through as active purchase orders. They're making contact with the owners of the purchase orders, and a lot of those are being closed. The projects are finished, and those purchase orders aren't being needed anymore. And we've already, in that effort, freed up about $3 million. So we feel like, given that effort, that we don't have to be incredibly nervous about the 13-5 number. But what we will need to remember is, regardless how much money we free up in that effort, it's one-time money. And be very cautious about how we proceed with any, dare I say, excess that might be freed up over the 13-5. I understand. That's good counsel. Last week, or whenever it was, you went over these numbers in a preliminary fashion. You mentioned that sick pay, payout, was not included. Would you go over what that figure was and how it will affect things again, please? Actually, I have different information this week than I did last week, and I haven't had time to sort out why I'm hearing something different now. We know that January will be a higher month for our personnel numbers because we have the sick check payouts that were in January. And for those who aren't familiar with that, Lexington Fayette Urban County Government employees who have in excess of 600 hours of sick leave banked at the end of the calendar year, they are paid for those hours, for those excess hours. And they maintain the 600 and move forward. I had been told a number much larger than I actually hear that to be right now. But it is in the millions of dollars, and it will make a difference in what we see in January. So you can't really look at the first half of the year and the second half of the year in terms of personnel because of that. And the other thing that we have in the second half of the year is if we have employees that are leaving government to retire in May, and May is one of those years that sometimes works very well for retirement, their payouts are reflected in that second half of the year, too. So we're watching. You mean sick and vacation payouts, right? Well, we don't pay out sick. We pay out vacation and holiday. I think that's right. Sick leave is counted towards your retirement. Oh, OK. I mean, they get the benefit of it, but it's not cash. Got you. One thing that we're watching very closely is what's happening with the retirement bills in Frankfurt. I think all of you are aware that right now there's legislation in place that would change the retirement calculation from a high three years to a high five. And then right now that is effective January 1, 2009. So if you have career employees who are eligible for retirement, for financial reasons, they really have to retire. In most calculations, if you run it, it would take the employee about five years to work to get back to where they were in December of 2008 if they stay past this window. But we don't know what the General Assembly is going to do in that respect. They could grandfather people and open that up again. But there's always going to be this determination by employees of whether we're giving a larger raise at LFUCG than the retirement system is, because there's some play between which raise is higher and when those raises are given. So John and I are monitoring all that very closely, because it will significantly affect our personnel numbers. If not this year, certainly next. OK, good. Thank you. And then you said that you're next week going to be talking with the mayor about a few projects that we could potentially put on hold to kind of give us a little bit of breathing room this fiscal year. And then last week, the mayor also mentioned there will be some other things that you all are discussing and thinking about. When can we expect to hear sort of an overall approach for the soft revenue that we're experiencing? I would hope, and I think I told you last week, about two to three weeks, we would be able to firm up the 13-5 number. Our goal is to bring all of that to you at the same time. I would hope that we would be finished with this purchase order cleanup, so we would kind of know what we gained from that. We would know what our 13-5 number really is. And we would have had the opportunity to have one more month of revenue and kind of see what it did for us in January. And I think then we'll be ready to bring some proposals to you for how we deal with whatever it is we happen to be seeing at that point. Good, I'm glad you mentioned that, because I want to look ahead now. So at our next budget and finance meeting, can we expect to see proper STARS reported information for year to date up to that point? Unless something just goes completely off the charts, and we have tested and tested and tested the process that we're going through right now, I have no reason to believe that this time next month, we won't be able to. And from then on, we will have reports by the 10th of the month. I want to ask a favor. If for some reason you're unable to do so, then we need your best effort before this committee, because we went for, what, six months without anything. And I'm getting increasingly nervous about our soft numbers. I grant you that it's not a crisis, but a lack of information makes me even more nervous. So the more we can have, the better. And really, we don't have any reason for concern about the 2008 revenue and expenditure numbers. They're running straight out of STARS. What you are seeing is a STARS report, and I think through November has been closed. So we're not seeing anything to give us any pause for the revenue and expenditure numbers in 2008, other than that revenue is slowing. It is this 13.5 number that significantly affects how we move forward that makes it uncomfortable for 2008. One last favor. On your next report, it would be nice if we had comparison to last year's numbers as well, actuals, where you can. We can do that once we close. The reason we can't do it right now, of course, is because we don't have 2007. That's cool. Yes, absolutely. That's all I need. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Blevins. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Just have a couple questions on the draft copy you gave us. One, on the property tax accounts, do those numbers include the money we're collecting for the library as well? Because we're showing 18 million budget, which I assume that includes the library's money. Yes, it does. We make payments to the library monthly. And we've collected 12 million of those property taxes so far. Yes, well, year to date is 14. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, yeah, year to date 14, okay. So still about $4 million more. What about personnel cost on the expense side? Are they up, down, even? Well, I think on personnel, we're down a little bit. I mean, we're at 45.7%. And I think when I did this last year, I looked, if we had moved the expenditure for the sick leave back into the first half of the year, we would be at about 48%. So we're still under where you would expect us to be, a little bit under where you would expect us to be this time of year. But I think that's demonstrated by the fact that we have reduced the number of positions in government, and we're not filling some of those as they come up. Well, I know you can't take a certain month and say this is what's gonna happen the rest of the year. But in terms of personnel costs, I mean, just for the first six months, it looks like we're averaging $14 million a month in personnel costs. So that would be about 168 million for the whole year, which is a $20 million difference if you do that math. So are you saying that that, say there is 20 million, that sick leave could be in the tens, millions? Well, and it's a $14 million a month when we only have two payrolls. And we have two months that we have three payrolls. So that counts for, yeah, that'll get you another 14 million. And then the sick leave and the payouts for retirement. So if we have two payrolls, it's 14 million, three payrolls in a month does what? About 21. 21, okay. Okay. Which months are those? I knew somebody was gonna ask. February. February is one and we've already had one. I think it might've been September or October. Does that sound right? So only one. There's one in the first half and one in the second half. We'd only have to put in for one then for the rest of the year rather than two. Right, so I mean, it still looks like personnel's down a good chunk of change. What numbers will you all use when we get the budget? How far into the accounting year will you use? Will you use December end numbers, January? John's gonna cover some of that in just a moment. He's gonna talk with you some about how we're gonna budget for 2009 and he will cover that for you. Okay, good. I'll hold them questions in. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Stennett. Mr. Lane, you were on and then you were off and now you're back on. I've had that happen before. I'm sorry if I erased you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say I'm a very strong proponent of the new accounting system and I think that I worked very closely with you and the administration in trying to get our budgets out but I am also concerned, our last audited report was June 30th of 2006. That's over almost 19 months ago. And if we had been a New York Stock Exchange listed company, we would be delisted from the Stock Exchange for not having filed timely reports. So I'm not panicked. I've said that the other day but I am concerned that we don't have the tools to work with to really operate and manage the government adequately. And I would also say I'm not throwing the blame on the Newberry administration because you inherited this problem when you took over but it still concerns me. We need to get our arms around it and get this taken care of. Absolutely. And let me remind you though that we made a conscious decision to do some things to rebuild the revenue side of this so that we knew that we would be absolutely as clean as we could be going forward. We didn't absolutely have to do that. We could have cut our losses and moved on and we just decided that we wanted this to be what was right for us for the long haul instead of a short-term fix. So, and I accept responsibility for that because we did make that decision. Okay. The other issue that I've sort of brought up on several occasions is rather than having annual budgets that we budget on a month to month basis. And, you know, a couple of this particular report is a good example of why that is an important thing to do. For example, the licenses and permits revenue, you know, many people pay an estimated payment on January 15th and then they may make their final payment on April 15th. But without looking at historical revenue collections on a month by month basis, it's very difficult. We see we're at 45% of revenue. That could concern you unless you are aware of some of the timing issues. Of the seasonality. You're exactly right. And then you look at the other issue we just brought up on personnel where we just have an annual lump number there. But as you just pointed out, some months we have three payrolls. Some months we have two payrolls. So I feel that if we had those monthly estimates in there, then we could really look how close we're running to, you know, reality rather than just using an annual on some basis. I know you're working on that. I just wanted to reiterate my concern. Yes, we are. I do have a question. How are we doing on that? Are we still looking good to go for monthly? Yes. Well, yes, kind of, sort of. We are actually, we have a meeting scheduled later this week with Metaformers to present to us the capacity of the budgeting module beyond the way we're using it right now. We've implemented just kind of a bare minimum of this software to make sure that we get through this budgeting cycle. So now we've gone back to them to say, okay, we know that there's a lot there in terms of, especially on the planning side and projections and that kind of thing. So we have a meeting with them that they're going to present to us later this week. What else is available in the module? John and I have already had several conversations with Metaformers about the monthly budgeting. And they, in fact, are working on that model right now. So we hope to have the monthly budgeting model available for 2009. That's good. The other question I have is that the, you know, the state passed a law, I guess it was two years ago, that required corporations and limited, these are S-Corps and limited liability companies to file actually an estimated payment through the S-Corp or through the LLC. And then that amount was credited on a pro-rata basis on a K-1 form to the owners of the business. And then they would pay the balance of the taxes. And I believe that that's been repealed. Do you think that's had an impact on any of the numbers that you're, or the payments you're receiving now are, would that have no impact? I realize it's a state ordinance, but a law. But maybe people would have paid more frequently to the city government because they were making these estimated payments anyway. If it's okay, I'd like to ask Bill O'Mara to address that. It's a little more detailed than that. Council Member Ahn, I'm familiar with what you're talking about. And I don't believe it has any impact on our local numbers. Our estimated payment requirements were based on size, regardless of type of legal entity. And so it's someone who had a $5,000 liability or more in a year is required to pay estimated payments. And that hasn't changed when the state had and repealed and back and forth their requirements. So I don't believe it has an impact on us. Okay, well, I decided to ask because I know last year I paid an estimated payment to the Durham County government, which is different from what I paid this year because we were doing them all at one time. So I just thought it might have had some impact on your payment coming in under that category. Okay, that's all the questions that I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Mrs. Gorton. Thank you, Dr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your report. I just wanted to ask you to give a little bit more detail about those purchase orders and what happened with that and what's going to happen. Okay. There were a number of purchase orders on the mainframe that had money encumbered from prior years, not just 2006, but some even had money encumbered from 2004. And if I had some of the people here with me who actually did that, I think it probably even went back further than 2004. But that money had been reserved in the fund balance. So it, for all practical purposes, on the reports that you were seeing about those years, that money was already spent. But then as we started working through this purchase order and purchase order thing, we found that a number of those that were rolled forward really should have already been closed, that the project was closed or whatever, for whatever reason. So there was that bit of coming forward from 2006 to 2007. And then in 2007, we had the issue of people trying to learn how to use the system. And there were purchase orders that encumbered money that people really didn't mean to encumber money or for one reason or another, there were two purchase orders for the same things. So literally, the Division of Purchasing Staff is going through every single line, and I told you there were in excess of 3,000 of these, to try to determine whether it's still an active purchase order or whether it needs to be closed. And what we've done, what we hope to do once we get to this place, is implement some kind of either monthly or quarterly review of the outstanding purchase orders so that we don't get this buildup again, that people are staying on top of what purchase orders are active and which ones need to be closed. Do they actually get closed out through budgeting or through purchasing? Through purchasing. Okay. So when you're finished with all of this, you will have all the prior ones from 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007? Those will all be gone through and finished. Yes, ma'am. And then you're going to put in some sort of system to follow them ongoing so this doesn't occur. Because I think Dr. Stephens and I both heard you say something about a $3 million number, which is a big number. Absolutely. And you know, it really, it's not, it's not like there are big chunks of money. We've gotten to $3 million by, some of them are 29 cents and some of them are 450,000. So it's just, it's a little bit of all over the board and for any number of purposes, but primarily due to conversion and then those early efforts that people were struggling with the system. So just, I want to just be sure I understand. Purchase orders originate throughout government and then purchasing is the end point where they're closed out. That's right. Okay. So will the control? Actually, once we get through this, accounting will be where they are finally closed out. And is that where the control will be for the month to month or quarter to quarter look? And that will be in purchasing. Okay. All right. Thank you. A penny saved is a penny earned, even though it's 29 cents. That's exactly right. Any further questions? If not, Mr. John Kuban would like to talk to us for a bit about budgeting processes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Just wanted to give you just a kind of a quick update on where we were in the process for the 08-09 budget cycle. And maybe first to answer Council Member Stennett's question in terms of the budget for this current year in terms of payroll, what we'll be looking at in terms of building the 08-09 personnel budget is we'll look at current year in terms of the budget, actually salaries and quarters. As you know, what we've had and one of the things we're working on, because we know the Council's had some questions, is there's a difference between filled positions, people on board and authorized strength. And that's where we get into a lot of the issues. I know you all have had questions about in terms of vacancies and so forth, but it's building those numbers. But we'll be looking at actual salary and fringe paid and actually be projecting off that. But we are wrestling with, in terms of that information, I know you've had questions about in terms of filled positions versus authorized strength. And there's quite a difference there in terms of at any given point in time. And I think last night, you actually heard the mayor in his speech that when you have anywhere from 120 to 240 days to fill a position, that's a big lag in terms of vacancies that you're dealing with in terms of your authorized strength and actually filling positions. But we will be looking at actual figures there. Couple other things we wanted to update you on is we're in the middle of the budget process. The majority of all the division budgets will be in by the end of the month. In addition, on the partner agencies, we work closely with the outside services committee. We did it a little differently this year. We opened it up. We put it on the website. We had a technical assistance workshop. We've gotten more applications in from new agencies. We also contacted all the agencies who are currently receiving funding. We're going through that information. That information, of course, is shared with the council. So we'll be reviewing that information. On policy issues, there's a number of things that, unlike any other budget time, that we're going to wrestle with. We're going to have to deal with health insurance. As you know, health insurance, based on national figures, is projected over the next several years based on the Center for Medicaid and Medicare in Atlanta are projecting about 8% a year increase in health insurance. So we'll be looking very closely at our health insurance expenditures. Kena already mentioned on pensions. We got two things happening on pensions. We're working very carefully to look at where we are in terms of our underfunded liability on the police and fire pension. Also, we are going to be very dependent on what happens at the state level. As Kena mentioned, there's the retirement window, which may or may not be extended this year. Potentially, there's several hundred employees in this government that could be affected by that. If those employees go, and they could go either in May, they could go in September, they could go all the way at the end of the calendar year, that will affect us in terms of paying those positions out, in terms of any accumulated benefits, and also refilling those positions. So all that has to be looked at. Plus, if there's a change in the retirement system, that affects the contribution rate. As you know, for the non-sworn personnel in Lexington government, they're in CERS, which is part of the state system. And if there's decisions made at the state level in terms of how that's gonna be funded, that unfunded liability, and also in terms of the benefit packages, that could affect our future rates that we pay there. The state budget will have a large impact. We'll get a first glimpse of it tonight when Governor Beshear makes his address, but we probably won't know till the end of March where that is. But there's a large number of funds that we get from the state, whether it's homeland security, transportation funding, that a large portion of those funds will be affected in terms of how that state budget turns out. I think another thing that we certainly should mention, and we've talked some about the 13 and a half million carry forward out of 07, that is not unlike the state budget, that is basically a structural deficit. And I actually remember Council Member Lane asked her in my confirmation hearing about that, on a percentage basis. The dollars aren't the same magnitude, but on a percentage basis, our structural deficit is not a lot different than what the state's is. We're about 13 and a half million on a $269 million base. The state's problem was on about a $8.5 billion base. But we have a structural deficit. If we have slower revenue growth in 08, 09, we will face some of the same difficulties the state's faced in terms of if we don't have a lot of new growth dollars to offset that structural deficit, we won't even have funding to support current baseline expenditures. So we're looking very carefully at that 13 and a half million and also looking at those revenue estimates and how those are going to play out against each other. The mayor mentioned last night in his budget, in his state of the emergency government address also about the management study. There's going to be a number of recommendations there, a lot of opportunities for some savings and also opportunities for investments that the mayor and the council will want to look at very closely. And the last point to mention was the mayor has been scheduling the budget hearings, we'll be doing the process much the same as last year, probably beginning about the middle of February and we'll be undergoing that process. So I want just to point out some things that we have a lot on the table, there's a lot to look at, it'll be a tough budget to put together, but there's a lot of things that we need to look at, a lot of areas to be reviewed, but we're certainly going to have some challenges in this budget. And I don't think under any scenario, given the fact we've got a structural deficit, that we can expect any large amount of new growth dollars, because that first dollar that we get in growth is going to have to begin offsetting that first 13 and a half million in the structural deficit. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I did have a question, you were talking about the management study. Yes, sir. And how that will affect our budget. When will that information be available about recommendations and so forth? I think the mayor's working, I think, for sometime in February to be able to bring that with the council to give you all a detailed briefing on what's in the report and what the options are, so that can be part of the consideration in the budget process. So you're saying sometime in February? Yes, sir. And the mayor will present to the council recommendations for these management changes, and with a budget note, I guess, with them. Well, they will basically have an estimate of what potential savings or investments, because there's also going to be some opportunities to look at some things to improve services that may have a cost, and all that has to be weighed out in terms of the budget process and in terms of timing and implementation. The other question I had, he mentioned last night that because we had a reduction in employees, we were saving X number of dollars, but that's only if their functions are not carried out by an outside contractor. Is there any way we can look at the, of course, we haven't had any financial reports at all to look at, so, to speak of, but is there any way we can examine those functions that were done by the employees who are no longer here, and see if we contracted outside to do that? That's certainly something we could provide you information on in terms of, and you know, there's two aspects to look at that. There's one, if you don't fill a position in terms of what happens to that work, do you kind of re-engineer it, do you do the work a different way, or do you find a different way to carry out the same services, either by reallocating staff, or, in fact, do you contract out, and if you contract it out, what are the savings associated with that contracting? And, you know, there's different ways of looking at the privatization. The state has a whole elaborate scheme of statutes in terms of looking at privatization, what the savings are, what the length of time your cost, but I think one of the things that you always look at on the privatization in terms of how long do you have to carry out the service, is it a short-term, long-term project, does it make sense to bring someone in short-term, or as opposed to trying to, and where do you staff at? Do you try to staff up to kind of the plateau of work, or do you kind of staff at the base level, and then augment that staffing when you have higher peaks or special needs? A good example is an area that Keene is working in in terms of computer services. When you get into a large implementation, you wouldn't want to staff up with permanent full-time employees for that, but you do want to have a core of staff available to carry on basic maintenance and operation once you get that system implemented. Yeah, well, that was my thought, that if we, say, use the example of an engineer, if we do engineering inside, but then that engineer's position is terminated, and we hire somebody on the outside to do it, we're not necessarily saving money by losing that employee. Of course, as you know, we use engineers in both ways. We use engineers, actually, to oversee projects that Lexington is actually undertaking, and we also use engineers to manage contracts, actually, to go out and monitor work being done by contractors. Yeah, I understand that, but I'm just saying that sometimes transferring work, decreasing your workforce, but transferring the work outside doesn't necessarily save you money. Are there other questions for Mr. Kuban about the budget coming up, Mr. Stennett and Mr. Blevins? Or Mr. Blevins, and go ahead, Mr. Stennett. What month-end date budget are we gonna use for the upcoming mayor's budget? Are we gonna use numbers through the end of January, did you say? We'll actually use, there'll be two things we'll have to look at. We'll have to pick a date, and we have not picked that yet. We'll have to pick a date as of what number will we look at filled positions, and where we stood as of that date. Okay, so it could be mid-month, it could just be... But the further we get into the year, the better data we have, and because in Lexington, all salary increments are given in July, you've got pretty level months, except as Kenan mentioned, you've got some things in January that happen, and so forth. But obviously, the better months you have, in terms of whatever positions are in the pipeline being filled, the better number we have, the more accurate that will be. Right, and so I was hoping to suggest, if we can get through the end of January, it'd be great. Because in years past, I think, I know Mr. Deaton's here, we used December and a November end to work the budget, and that makes it a little more difficult. Of course, the agencies that have positions in the pipeline to be filled, they want to push that date up as far as they can to protect that date off of. Now, will the new software, the STARS, allow us to push that date up further? Is that one of the benefits of STARS? I mean, would it aid in giving us numbers that are further into the calendar year, or fiscal year? Actually, for those purposes, we'll be actually running off the payroll system, and we'll actually be looking at those payrolls and those last days paid, and looking at how many pay periods are in that number when we come off that month. Well, when would you all anticipate drawing the line? Our payroll's not in STARS at this point. Right. Yes, sir. When do you anticipate finding that number and that date? Number one. I mean, we've already been doing some preliminary work, and, of course, the data we have now, the preliminary work we've been looking at is what, the last week and the last payroll in December is what we've been looking at, just for things we've been working on preliminarily. But obviously, we're up into January now, so we've got more current data. And once we get the agency budget request in in February, we kind of start that process. And as you know, we have the hearings on the mayor, and then in March is when you actually start looking at those numbers and trying to see where you can actually move money and look at things and start to try balancing. Okay, so we probably won't know that until the mayor actually delivers his budget. But I can honestly tell you at this point, we have not picked a date. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Senate. Mr. Blevins. I want to follow up on what Kevin was talking about. One of the things we did last year that I thought was really smart on our collective part was right up to the bitter end. Ms. Coe was coming to us with updated numbers, and as a result, our budget was a lot more accurate. And I think the pain we're about to feel is going to be a lot less as a result. So I want to echo what he's talking about. The better numbers, the better off we'll all be. What I wanted to ask was, is it your intent to bring us a structurally balanced budget this year? I think, let me answer it this way. I can tell you we're not at that point in terms of discussions. And when you look at structural deficits, there's two ways. One, and I can tell you from my experience in state government, and state government has been doing structurally imbalanced budgets for some time, both the mayor and the council have a situation that if you have one-time money that are available, what do you do with it? And there's different schools of thought. I mean, if you have pressing needs and there are operational needs, and what's caused the state the problem and what we face is, if you go with a structurally imbalanced budget and you don't have any growth the next year in your revenue estimate, you have no growth to offset that structural deficit. There are people who would argue that if you have a structural deficit you ought to use one-time money for one-time expenditures. That's certainly an option. The size of the structural deficit, how much it is compared to your growth, all needs to enter into your decision. If you had a one or two million dollar structural imbalance and you normally had five or six percent growth on your revenue number, so you're looking at 12, 15 million new dollars and all you had to pick up was a million or two in it, is one thing. If you got 13, 14, 15 million structural and you only get one or two percent growth on your general fund, then you don't even have enough to make baseline. So I think to just come up with a hard and fast and say there's no way to ever recommend budgeting one-time money for reoccurring expenditures, I think you have to look at it in terms of the degree, what your needs are, and then make a decision. I know, having been some of those discussions at the state level on the budget, you sit there and say, do we spend structurally imbalanced money or do you cut Medicaid? Do you spend structurally imbalanced money or do you give teachers raises? And those are the kind of hard policy decisions that you really have to wrestle with and decide, okay, what is the best public budget policy and then what are the needs you've got in front of you that you need to fund? Okay, I understand that it's a complex problem. What I'm more concerned about is avoiding what's happened this year, which is that we predicted revenue growth and it's not, appears to not being coming in. So I guess I'll look forward to the mayor's budget and we'll know the answer probably then, won't we? But I mean, it's definitely, I can tell you there hasn't been any decisions made on that, but it's something we're certainly very much aware of and we'll be looking at very closely. All right, thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Mr. Kuban, are there any other questions? Mr. Lane. Just a quick question. I know you're relatively new on the job, but in looking at the budget surpluses, would you say that in most cases they were because expenses were less than projected as opposed to incomes being a lot more than projected? I mean, you say budget surpluses. I'm not sure. Well, I'm talking about it for the urban county government surplus. In other words, in previous years, is it that we had a surplus more because we'd, our expenses were budgeted at a higher level than we actually expended? Or is it because our revenues increased more than we budgeted? Can you? Yeah, you wanna take that? Yeah, do it. I think when we were looking at that about this time last year, it really was both. Almost consistently, revenue was coming in at more than 100%. Expenditures were coming in under 100%. So, and we can get you some historical information on that, but my recollection of it is that it really was both. Well, you know, I think that that would be real helpful. You don't need to make it too complicated a report. I think if we could go back six or eight years and look at our budget and our actual revenue and then our budget expenses and actual expenses, it might give us a perspective. It would be helpful to me, and I'm sure some of our newer councilmembers. Mr. Deaton, I worked on that last year. We can pull that back out for you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, we'll proceed with the second item on the docket, which is a discussion about the council links. Council links were started, I guess, six or eight years ago, and the idea was that they would be similar to what the United States Congress does in the House of Representatives with the committees which are assigned to various functions of the administrative structure. This enables our congressmen to have a deeper understanding of that function and management that's done in those areas so that when they're formulating the Federal budget, they can have more judgment about expenses to allocate or the expenses, money to allocate. In the past, we've last, and Mr. Southers has presented in your docket the council links for the last two budget cycles, and they've functioned, I think, very well and have proved to be of value. So I would like to see us continue that with your agreement, but the question I have for you is whether we need to change the personnel in the various links. Of course, Mr. Maloney has departed for Greener Pastures in Frankfurt, and Ms. Henson has taken his place, so we have one change. We also have a new department, the Department of Environmental Quality, which is kind of an offshoot of Public Works, and my suggestion there would be that we combine those two departments in one link, because that way we can, the link can have conversations with the commissioners and the directors of those various elements and see how that's coming along with census separation. So I would open this for your suggestions. I have had one suggestion about the personnel on each link, and that is to solicit from you which link you might want to serve on, and if so, we can compile those, and Mr. Stenna and Mr. Lane as co-chairs and I as the chair of this committee can assign those links as you see fit. Of course, if everybody wants to be on the same link, we may have to make a few arbitrary decisions, which might not suit everybody, but I'm opening it up for discussions. Mrs. Gordon? Thank you, Dr. Chair. Would you go over, first of all, what you said about which links you would combine? I wouldn't combine any links. I think we can still go with the five, but since Public Works has kind of been split into the Department of Environmental Quality, put the Department of Public Works and Department of Environmental Quality in the same link. I see. Well, my only comment was going to be for just a piece of history. For a couple of years, we stayed the same, and then the council decided that it would be to our benefit if council members served on a different link from the one they were on the previous year because the idea, one of the ideas is that council members learn about the different departments. And so I would certainly favor shuffle, a shuffle of some sort. I think it could be beneficial to all of us. I know I've served on three different ones and learned a lot because I served on three different ones. So it would be my recommendation that you not only shuffle the members, but you shuffle the chairs. Okay. So you would like to start the music again, and when the music stops, we'll all grab a chair, right? Okay. Any further discussion? For this to work, you need to submit your request, and I have an email, as does everybody else, and Jerry would be happy to take your request. Mr. Lane? Yeah, I just was interpolating for Council Member Gordon. I think she was saying she was a chairperson last year and she didn't want to be one this year. I got that message, too. Actually, I've chaired three different years, but a shuffle's good. Musical chairs is good. So I get a sense that, at least from one member of our committee, and I would favor that also, that we'll do a shuffle, but we need your request for which link you might want, on which you might want to serve. Also, there's a new, another new contact we need to make, and that's with the CIO who's been added, and I thought he might fit or she fit under the first link, the general government. We no longer have a CAO, but we do have a person who's functioning in a role that's very similar to a CAO. And otherwise, I would leave them the same except for the fifth link, which would be a combination of those two new departments. Any further comments? Yes, Mr. Stennett. Would you put budgeting, keep it in finance, I assume? Yes. Even though it's in the mayor's office? Yes. I think that would be the best place for it. What do you think? Any other comments? If not, we will entertain your request. We will start the music going, and then we'll shuffle them out and notify you in a few days at which council link you may be serving. Is there any other business to come before this committee? If not, we are adjourned. Thank you very much for your time. Dr. Stevens. And Council Member Maloney, which reminded me of his, of the vacancy in his role on this committee, and the appropriate protocol, I believe, would be for me to appoint, for the Vice Mayor to appoint someone to fill that vacancy, is that correct? I don't think she was on this committee. She is named on the committee. I don't know if she even knew she was appointed. Yes, I think it would be up to you to. I think, well, I wanted to have a discussion with Council Member Henson about the committees that she would be perhaps most interested in and most, and find most benefit from serving in, and I've had a, just a casual conversation with her so far. So we'll do that, and then I'll make a, and then I'll get back with you on the, on what she had to say about that, whether or not it's this committee or perhaps other committees. We would welcome her or the appointment of your choice. Right. Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other, any thoughts on that, anybody? Okay. Thank you, sir. Not many thoughts floating around today. We are adjourned.