Music Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. It's 2.10. We'll go ahead and begin the Budget Fines Committee. I'll recognize Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Myers to get a quorum. The first item on the agenda is the October 21st Budget Committee. The whole summary, this is for information only. This was approved at the November 11th work session. The second item is a comprehensive annual financial report, and the CAFR was just passed out here to us. And I'll ask Bill O'Meara, Commissioner, I think you're going to introduce our guest. Thank you, Chair. Pleased to have Simon Kimmer from Dean Dorton, Alan Ford here to address counsel on the Consolidated Annual Financial Report for Physical 14, which I think is the earliest in my memory, anyway. And I wanted to take the opportunity to both thank all the staff from Dean Dorton as well as especially the staff in the Department of Finance and accounting especially for all their hard work and dedication in order to be able to make this presentation today. We've asked for it to come in the November budget finance, and they've done it. So that is glad they were able to accommodate us. Welcome. We always like to have the guy from Pikeville come here. Or at least eastern Kentucky, I think. Is that close to that? Somewhere around there. Yeah. Unfortunately, we normally do this in January. Bringing it forward to November meant we were still in snow, which was not what I was predicting. As Bill said, my name is Simon Keemer. I'm an owner with Dean Dalton, Alan Ford. I was the owner responsible for the audit of LFUCG. Our audit standards require us to come before those charged with governance. That's the formal title our audit standards give to the Budget and Finance Committee of LFUCG. We're required to come before those charged with governance and provide certain required communications. In essence, this meeting today fulfills partially those requirements. So there's our introductory letter. I would like to also extend my thanks to Bill, Phyllis, and their team. Again, their team did a great job of providing our team with what we needed to get through the audit as efficiently and as effectively as possible. And as Habil alluded to, I don't think your auditors have been here at the November meeting in quite some time. The agenda for today, as I said, is to do a little introduction and then go through kind of the required communications that we're provided to give to those charged with governance at the conclusion of our audit. In essence, these comments are governed by Auditing Standard 260, the auditor's communication with those charged with governance. Just to highlight an element that the last sentence in the second paragraph, this report is dealing with the CAFA audit, the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report audit. We are currently in the process of completing the government's A133 audit, which is the audit required over the federal grants, the major programs of those federal grants. We have not finished our work there yet, so we will update this report probably in January once the A133 audit is complete. That A133 audit will also include all of the items that we find in terms of internal control deficiencies that we consider to be significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. We'll get to that a little bit later in this presentation, but just to let you know, internal control deficiencies will not be formally reported if we find any until we conclude the A133 audit. responsibilities, you'll see within the CAFA, there's a couple of pages that is our audit opinion. You'll see you received a clean audit opinion again this year, an unmodified opinion. That's the best opinion that the city can receive. Within that audit report, it lays out in summary form kind of the difference between our responsibilities and the responsibilities of management. The split between our responsibilities and management's responsibilities are more fully described in our arrangement letter that we issued that was dated May 12, 2014. But just to summarize our responsibilities that we conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States and the government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, our A133 audit is also being performed in accordance with the provisions of the Single Audit Act Office of Management and Budget Circular A133 and the OMB's compliance supplement. We planned out and performed our audit to obtain reasonable assurance. We are unable to give complete assurance, so we give reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. We also evaluated the appropriateness of accounting policies being used by management and then the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates and evaluated the overall presentation. We considered the government's internal control over financial reporting. That was to design our audit procedures and not to express an opinion on the effectiveness of those internal controls. So as such, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the government's internal controls over financial reporting. We've also planned and performed the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about noncompliance with laws, regs, contracts, and grants. applicable to the government's major federal programs. Our formal reporting on that element will be within the A133 audit. We've also considered internal control over compliance with those major federal requirements. Again, that audit is still ongoing. And we will again express an opinion on our A133 work, but that opinion will not include an opinion on the the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. And as always, our audit does not provide legal determination of the government's compliance with laws, regulations, contracts, and grants. We issued in May 12, 2014 to this group a separate communication which basically laid out the plan, scope, and timing of our audit. And that document should also be considered with regards to the statements that I'm making here today. So if we start getting into some of the meat of the required communications, in terms of preferability of accounting policies and practices, GAP provides management with a number of situations where they can select between alternative practices. In our view, wherever there were alternatives that management could select from, they always selected the preferable accounting practice. adoption of a or change in accounting policies there are actually none um this year there were no no new accounting standards that had any real impact on the financials there were no changes in accounting policies this year that that significantly impacted the financials but um just to give uh this group a heads up you're going into uh fiscal year 2015 where gasby 68 and associated standard number 71 will become effective. 68 is the standard that significantly changes the government's reporting for pensions, and that will have a significant impact on the financials. In essence, what GASB 68 is going to require is that any unfunded liabilities that KRS has that those be allocated to each individual employer within their plans and that those individual employers will then recognize on their financial statements their portion of KRS's unfunded liability. So as you can imagine, most government entities and government agencies in the state of Kentucky are going to have a liability that they will be recognizing on their balance sheet. as a result of GASB number 68. For more information on 68 and a few other accounting standards that will be effective in future years, you can find those in note 10 in the financial statements. We did not identify any significant or unusual transactions that we felt the need to discuss with you here today. In terms of management's judgments and accounting estimates, We actually have a section called Summary of Significant Accounting Estimates that I'll get to in a little bit, and we will go through the significant judgments and estimates that are impacting the financial statements and how management dealt with those estimates and how we approached the audit of those estimates. There were no audit adjustments to the original trial balance that was presented to us when we began our audit. And then in terms of uncorrected misstatements that we found that management determined were immaterial, and we concurred with management, so they were not corrected in the CAFA, these are the three items that we identified. The first two actually relate to the same transaction that was being allocated 50% to the Federal and States Grant Fund and 50% to the 2014 Bonds Fund. So as this has gone through our review process, we've had a number of comments as to whether that was an error because all of the numbers appeared to be the same. So just so that you guys are aware, that is one transaction that came to about just over a million dollars that was being split 50-50 between those two funds. And then the landfill fund at the bottom there, just some expenses that came through in FY15 that really related to FY14 but were not accrued in the financial statements. Moving on with our required communications, we had no disagreements with management during the audit, and as far as we're aware, they did not have any consultations with other CPA firms with regards to accounting or auditing matters. There were no significant issues discussed with management during the audit, and we did not encounter any significant difficulties in dealing with management during the audit. And as I said earlier, communication of significant deficiencies and material weaknesses will be included in our A133 reporting package, and this document that you have in front of you today that I'm going through will be updated as a result of anything we find within our A133 audit and will be reissued likely in January. So moving on to management's judgments and accounting estimates, obviously there's a few areas in the financial statements where there is not a black and white answer. Management needs to make judgments as to future outcomes. They need to make estimates. We will go through what we consider to be the significant items within your financial statements. But just to give you guys a heads up that those items could change in the future. So it's always wise from a governance standpoint just to monitor the process that's being used to determine and record those accounting estimates. The net pension, another post-employment benefit obligation. The accounting policy there is that the government records an accrual for that obligation, and it's based upon the cumulative difference between the annual required contribution and the actual contributions made. The annual required contribution is obviously based upon a number of significant estimates, such as rates of compensation increases, discount rates need to be applied to expected benefits, and then you have investments that are going to be used to meet those future liabilities. So estimating the expected rate of return on those assets is also a significant estimate that impacts that liability. Management uses an actuary to perform those calculations, to perform the calculation by the pension liability and the OPEB liability. The pension liability is calculated by the actuary every year. The OPEB is every other year. That's allowed by GAP. We perform procedures over the assumptions used by the actuary. We looked at the qualifications of the actuary. The actuary's professional standing. We also tested the underlying data that was given to the actuary and concluded that we believed the liability that resulted from those calculations was reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. There's a number of receivables on the CAFA. those receivables have an allowance against them for the extent that it's possible or probable that a portion of a particular account will not be collected. Generally, management uses historical loss rates, aging of accounts, if they've got any collection pattern with the respective payor of those receivables, general economic conditions, and any other ongoing disputes with regards to receivables. They factor all of that information into their assessment of the allowance against those collectibles. Again, we tested the underlying information that management was using to make those estimates and considered that allowance were reasonable in relation to the financials as a whole. Their methodology was consistent from period to period. Capital assets are amortized, depreciated over their useful life, so determining that life obviously impacts how quickly you recognize the expense. So determining the useful life of assets is a key estimate. Management generally uses past experience to determine how long an asset will last and then depreciates over that useful life. Again, we reviewed lives that were being assigned to capital assets. We tested the underlying information within the capital asset register and again concluded that those lives being applied were pretty consistent with what we see within government agencies. So the estimates were consistent in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The landfill, when you have a landfill, GAP requires you to actually have a liability on your books to actually close and cap that landfill and then to go through the post-closure care period. Management uses previous experience with landfills and closure and post-closure care costs to estimate what those costs will be on an ongoing basis. Again, we obtained those calculations, we looked at the underlying data, and again concluded that we thought the process management was using and the liability that they were coming up with was reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. The self-insurance program. There's a liability on the books for both claims that have been made against the government and the likely outcome of those claims, plus the incurred but not reported, the IBNR element. Again, management uses an actuary to base the liability upon, so they give a list of their outstanding claims and what's been settled during the year to the actuary. The actuary then calculates the likely value of those claims at settlement and then also calculates a likely incurred but not reported amount. Again, we got the report from the actuary. We looked at the actuary's assumptions, concluded that they appeared reasonable, the actuary again, we looked at to determine whether it was an actuary in good professional standing, and then we obtained the underlying information, made sure that the information being provided to the actuary to make those calculations appeared reasonable, and concluded again that the claims payable liability was reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. There's also some contingent liabilities in the financial statements. In essence, there's an accrual for a liability when it's probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred. These would be potentially contingent liabilities that fall outside the self-insurance program. Again, management in conjunction with legal counsel estimates a cost of those pending cases where there's a reasonably possible likelihood that the government will have some liability. We reviewed those, we reviewed the underlying data, we had discussions with both management and the Division of Law and concluded that the liability accrual appeared reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. With regards to financial statement disclosures, again, just the disclosures that are particularly sensitive to the users of your financial statements are likely to be the disclosures related to the accounting for the fund types that you have, the classification between major and non-major funds, revenue recognition, net asset classification, fund balance classification, and then a lot of the disclosures around those significant estimates that I've already talked about such as contingent liabilities and accounting for the net pension and OPEP obligations. We looked at those disclosures in the financial statements to assess whether we believed that they were neutral, consistent and clear and again determined that there was no issues noted that we needed to bring to your attention today. Also within the PAC that you have not within the slides, you'll see the management representation letter that we were provided with. There are certain elements within an audit where there is not documentary proof, if you will, to support what management is telling us. So we have to rely upon representations from management that they are providing us with everything we need. That is everywhere we've taken management representations is documented in the management representation letter and you will see that you've been provided a copy of that letter signed by the mayor, the commissioner of finance, and the director of accounting. That concludes what I am required to present to this group today, but I am available if any of you have questions. Well, thank you. And we do. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Keemer. You're more than welcome. Nice to see you again. I just wanted to ask back on the page that talks about GASB 68. Yes, ma'am. GASB 71. So you've said that the government will be required to adopt GASB 68 and 71. Is that one's in parentheses and one's not? And 71, yeah. Yeah, the GASB issued number 68, and then they subsequently issued 71, and the implementation date of 71 was stated as implement with GASB 68. 71 really, it didn't change much in 68. It provided some clarification, so that's why it's only noted parenthetically, because 71 is nowhere near the deal that 68 is. Right. Okay. So is the adoption simply in the hands of the Commissioner of Finance and his folks, or does the Council actually have to formally adopt it? No. I mean, you guys do not need to formally adopt anything. The Commissioner of Finance will adopt that accounting standard, and then they will apply the rules within that accounting standard to the CAFA, so you will see a financial impact of that accounting standard next year. Okay. But I would not want to say it's entirely in the hands of the Commissioner of Finance, just because so much of what he will need and what Phyllis will need to implement will have to come from the state. Okay. They will need to provide them the amounts. Well, that was going to be my next question, is then when do they find out those amounts? I mean, this changes every day, depending on many factors. So when will that happen? Right now, within Kentucky, that is the $64,000 question. We are waiting for information from the retirement system as to how they are going to deal with 68, how they are going to allocate, first off, how they're going to allocate their unfunded liability between government agencies. and then once they've finalized that, how they are then going to notify the different government agencies as to what their liability is. But they should be reporting that as of what is LFUCG's share of the unfunded liability as of June 30, 2015. Okay. It's a little dicey, isn't it? I'm looking at our commissioner. I mean, do you have any comments about that? Well, what Simon is alluding to, this is going to be one of the biggest changes that we'll see in our financial reporting. And for us to record as a liability on our financial statements a portion of the state unfunded liability is just a new world that we're going to start being in. And the state has a web page, and they have updates periodically about how they're going to go about doing this and distributing that liability. We're all waiting to see how that comes off in the first year and in the years following. So it's a big change. So you don't really have any idea yet how they will distribute it. Will it be based on population? Will it be based on who knows? Is there any indication? There are a lot of nuances that are still being worked through. So, for example, one of the big questions is what happens if you have an employee move from one government agency to another? Does the entire unfunded liability for that person move 100% to the new government agency on day one of them starting employment? or are they going to have to try and split the unfunded liability of that employee and say, okay, this much stays with their previous employer and then you're – so there's a huge amount of nuance going on as to how they're going to do this. And there's not clarity yet as to how it's going to be done. Okay, very good. We all just know it's going to be ugly. Yes, yes. Well, I'd say it will be. And there's not, I mean, if they intend to do it at the end of this fiscal year, they better get hopping, right? Thank you. I mean, they've been working on this for some time. It's not like they're just starting. Right. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Kemer? Seeing none, thank you for coming. And we look forward to seeing you next time. Well, I would just like to say it's our pleasure to serve LFUCG, and we certainly appreciate you selecting Dean Dalton to be your accounting firm. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is a monthly financial report. Commissioner, it starts on page 5. Thank you, Chairman. You have it in your packet, and I think we might have a delay to put it up on the screen. But it's basically the same format, just different style. And I'm happy to report that unemployment still goes down, and we're now below for the first time 5%. This past month they reported Fayette County at 4.8%. So that's a barrier that we've looked forward to and celebrate the fact that we're there. We have the third lowest unemployment in the state at 4.8%. Is it 4.8%? 4.8%. in the comparison of economic indicators. Oh, I'm back. I had it for a moment. It was the old one. I mean, it was your cap for a presentation. Oh, sorry. As we said, it's 4.9, excuse me, instead of 4.8. And we're still waiting for quarterly employment to come out for the June sector. Fayette County permits are up. Fayette County new businesses are slightly below, same time last year. Home sales are up, and the one we always want to see go down is foreclosures, and we have a decrease in foreclosures year over year, same month. With the financial, the big four, I'll turn that over to Rusty, He'll talk about the difficulties of making comparisons with the first month of a quarter in the red. Certainly. Welcome, Rusty. Good afternoon, everyone. As the commissioner said, I'll do the top four as typical. I will point out that the first month of a new quarter is always hard because two of the four, the top four, have due dates at the end of the month. So we collect a lot of that revenue. It's split depending on what day they get in. Some folks will post-market at the last day of the month. We won't get it until the next day. And as you will see as we go through the slides, that happened in the month of October. First slide is our month-to-day actual compared to budget. You can see we were off $4.1 million. Let's take a look at it from a year-to-date perspective. At this point, we're $2.8 million below budget. Employee withholding is $3.4 million. That is a category that we do have timing differences where a business holds on, sends a return in on the last day of the month. Net profit's up $183,000 year-to-date versus our budget. Insurance is $1.1 million. That is another one where we receive payments in the first two months. That evens out through the next month. And franchise fees is $1.6 million above budget. That is not timing. That is real income revenue we have received where they are actually coming in higher than what we have historically received from a couple of utilities. Taking a look at it, compared the current year-to-date to the same period prior year, year-to-date, we are about a half a million below prior year. But as mentioned, we had those timing differences in employee withholding. We're at $450,000. Net profits up $600,000 versus prior year. I will point out that in prior year, we had more net profit returns to customers, so that number is a little bit inflated. However, we still are up year-over-year. our refunds are down about $300,000, $350,000 versus prior year. Insurance, as you can see, is $2.1 million below prior year, and that, again, is the timing differences. And our franchise fees are $1.4 million up, and that is mostly a couple of utilities that are coming in higher. And based on the weather, we've seen in the last two days that trend might continue for the rest of winter as we get into the other months, even though last winter was a pretty harsh winter. The last slide is the nuisance abatement lien collections that we include in a package at your all's request for information purposes. Any questions? I see none. Thank you. Hello. I'm going to come back to the microphone. We have someone on maternity leave and someone on honeymoon in budgeting. So I'm going to pitch hit for our budgeting experts. I hope those are separate people. Pardon me. But the revenues do reflect the same theme as on the top four with timing differences, pretty much keeping us in the negative territory. That also shows up in ad valorem. There's timing differences as to when we receive those first payments for the property taxes. We are slightly behind in services, and that includes the Gulf, which is a major factor in our behind in budget year-to-date in the services category. We plus in the investment income because interest rates from what we were predicting have exceeded that, and then there's some other income. But for the four months ending October 31st, we have total actual revenue of $82.9 million against a budgeted revenue of $85.8. That puts us just under $3 million behind budget for the four months ending. On the expense side, we do show a favorable variance of $3.1 million in the personnel and $2.4 million in the operating. The partner agency shows a favorable variance of 1.9, but that is a timing difference of payment to the library. And so that variance is overstated because of the timing of when that library transfer was made. If you take all these into consideration, we do have a favorable variance. We have a negative position of 4.5 against a budgeted negative position of 8.4. So we're currently looking at a favorable variance of 3.9 million. Again, I would say that the first month of each quarter is not a trendsetter because of the propensity of having these timing differences with the due date of the last day of the following month of the end of a quarter. So I think the September is a better reflection of where we are so far this year, and we'll look at the second and third months of the second quarter to help us trend on how we're doing. Do we have any questions? Any questions, council members? I see none. With that, we will move on to the next item, which is the professional service increase for division of facilities and fleet. fiscal year 15 budget and Charles Young Community Center and the fiscal year 15 maintenance budgets. And I think John Chee. And I would like to start with Council Member Clark if you would because you brought this into committee and just give a start for us. Thank you. I think we were just we were looking at the amount that had been requested and we felt like it was enough out of the ordinary that we would appreciate some updating as we went on. Thank you. We have a very brief presentation. I know it's limited in time. We were asked, as CM Clark mentioned, on just kind of providing an overview of differences in a budget request between FY214 and 215. That primarily is grouped into three different groups. One is Facilities Management Group overall. The other one would be in regard to the Lyric Theater operation, and the last one, Charles Young Center. All three of them have primary reason for an increase in the cost, have been due to a couple of items. One, specifically with the Facilities Management Group, have been increase in the level of janitorial and custodial services. During the past five, six years, due to the budgetary issues that we've had, we've been forced to reduce the amount and frequency of custodial services, not only with this building but just about any other building that we are in charge of. And the idea has always been on a temporary basis, just trying to find a way to manage the budget. So none of the things seems to be improving, and based on the requests from our customers, we are trying to slowly build back up to the level of services that we had before the six years ago budget. So a lot of that has to do with level of services. The difference between the two budget year, it's about $225,000. Another item that contributed to the additional expenses is we actually have been taking on additional buildings in terms of the services. We have also switched because of the shift from fully in-house to a hybrid system of providing custodial services, which is trying to outsource certain areas that also results in some additional costs. We've also taken on 11 additional buildings in terms of the parking lots, sidewalks, snow removal, and what have you. So those are roughly our main areas why we have seen a cost escalation of what we anticipate to be $225 for the facilities management group. Next one is the Lyric Theater. and the request was for FY215, $10,000 more than 214. Really a lot of that, again, has to do with the increase for custodial and general services. And that one directly is in relation to the number and size of the events that have been booked and have already been had at the Lyric Theater. The other one is Charles Young Community Center that also the cost difference has been about $5,000. And they kind of, the cost for the cost increase is pretty much the same thing. Charles Young Center also saw a lot of increase in the use of the facilities for different community activities and so forth. This will show you pretty much in different accounts. we want to just kind of show you a breakdown cost. The first group is obviously what we've got with FM, Facilities Management Group. As you can see, there are four groups of professional services. And overall, what you're looking at based on the ratified project, we just want to give you an update on what was ratified, what is available right now, and the percentage. At this point, based on the latest report that we've got, you're supposed to be right around 60% to 65%. As you can see, the facilities management, it's in pretty good range right there. Next one is Lyric, and that one, again, is at 63% remaining funds for the rest of the year. That's also good. we've noticed some hike in the amount of funding that's being utilized right now, Charles Young Center, and that's professional services, primarily custodial services. So we're getting with them and taking a closer look at that, see if there are any kind of adjustments that need to be made at this point. Next one, again, just pretty much show you how we came up with the numbers. this show you on the right-hand side is the lyric FY215 versus 214 and show you what have been the cost difference in terms of increase in expenditure. The same deal would be with the Charles Young Center to the right. This is the full operational budget for the FY215. as you can see what the original budget amount is also, and in terms of percent available. Just want to remind you, there are a few items in here that shows at 100%, which probably is not correct. We started this year specifically budgeting separately for each of these buildings. It gives us a much better idea of where do we stand with facility expenditures. so we're trying to work out a couple of bugs in regard to allocation of expenses there. But as you can see overall, this is Lyric's budget doing fairly well in that area. The other one is also Charles Youngson. Again, just the same trend as you can see there. Expenditures in terms of repair and maintenance and professional services have gone up by some amount. On that note, are there any questions I'm glad to answer? Council members, do we have any questions? I see none. You gave us a great presentation. Thank you. Oh, Council Member Henson, actually, she does. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, John F. G. Sure. You know, I think you and I have had conversations in the past, Council has about the lack of really maintaining our facilities. So the increased cost, would you attribute that to also doing a better job of managing the maintenance on the facilities? Well, just to give you a point of reference, this building is supposed to be getting its windows cleaned on an annual basis. last time we did this was six years ago. I can tell. So we're in the process of soliciting bids for the window clean for this building. There are a lot of things that we had to compromise on, to be honest with you. The emphasis has been in the last few years making sure that the public areas are being maintained at a higher level and restrooms and so forth at the cost of scaling back what we do for just your typical office areas and so forth. And we're hoping we work our way back to the level of services we want. But, again, we have identified some area for increased efficiencies, but it's still going to require some additional funding to be able to meet the customer's demand there. I think our preventive maintenance and maintenance of maintaining the properties are so much more critical, I think that to not allow our properties just to deteriorate. Unrepairable. Yeah, I mean, the PMs obviously is a very critical aspect of facilities management, and that's unfortunately the first thing that kind of gets lost during the budget cuts and so forth. During the past few years, two years primarily, We've been able to get a little bit of additional funding that's needed and trying to get the PM portion back on track where it needs to be. I would say we're probably about a couple of years away to really get where we want to be. Traditionally, you want all your work orders 75% to 80% off them being PM. The other 20% would be what we call putting out fires and the last minute emergencies and so forth. At this point, I would say we're probably about 40, 60. So we're hoping we'll be able to hit the 70%, 80% within the next couple of years. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, John. I'll show you down to the other. Oh, Council Member Sketchfield. I just wanted to ask real quick, do we know what the revenues are for Lyric and for? Revenues for? What we bring in. For Lyric and Charles Young? Charles Young. The LERIC is being operated under professional services agreement, I believe, and the funding that is generated obviously has been re-spent back into their operation in terms of staffing and so forth. I'm not privy to all the numbers there, but I believe they were trying to release a financial report to the city. Yeah, the audit should have that. And Charles Young's been pretty much handled just like your typical community center, providing services. I don't think there is much of a revenue being generated at this point. I think Council Member Ford might have some input on that. Thanks, Mr. Chair. And Council Members, John Street is correct. In regards to the Charles Young Center, it does not produce any revenue. It's basically providing community service. And in the Lyric Theater, we do have a purchase of service agreement that supports the programmatic operations of the facility. And an audit is forthcoming. I would suspect early 2015. And, of course, the government owns both of those facilities in title indeed. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Any other council members with questions? I see none. Thank you, John. We'll go to the last item, the items in committee. Paul, could you go through these real quick? I think we probably could take a few of these off. I'd be happy to, Council Member. The first is the solid waste issue. It's related to the Waste Management Task Force that Council Member Stenet chairs. The second item is the activity-based costing and financial efficiency issue from Council Member Lane, and he had indicated at the last minute he wanted to keep it in through the following year after conversations with the CAO's office. The Economic Development Partner Agency issue was actually dealt, in addition to this committee, was also dealt in the Economic Development Committee of the whole, and I believe Council Member Scutchfield asked that that be removed from that committee. So it might be. Can we remove this from this committee? I'll entertain a motion at this point. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. We'll remove that one. The next two items are going to be dealt with at the next meeting, the wellness center and lease update from the administration as well as the AOC reimbursement policy from General Services. They will be brought to this committee at the next meeting in December. The next two items were actually just dealt with just now, the facilities and fleet professional services increase from the General Services Link, as well as the Lyric and Charles Young maintenance budget also from the Link. I move to remove those last two items. Second. We have a motion and a second to remove the facilities and fleet professional service increase in the Lyric and Charles Young maintenance budget. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. And then the last item is the Lyric financial audit. And if you recall, when this was discussed at committee, the Lyric board was the beginning of undertaking that financial audit. And I think this committee wanted to keep it in there until they saw the audit. Sounds good. And that pairs down that list for our last meeting in December. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Move adjourned. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? All those opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.