so මිශ්ර කරමු අපි මෙම ගා නැවි එය සිල් එය පෙරීම් මෙස ලෙමන අපි ගන්නේ කරන පෙරීම් ඇවිස්ක හොඳින් එය සිල් සිල් නම් සිල් එකක් සමු කරන පෙරීම් මෙම බඩ මිශ්ර සිල් වනු ඇත කරන පෙරීම් සිල් බඩ ක්වයියි කරන පෙරීම් සිල් වනු ඇත කරන සිල් සිල් කෂව්ණාම හොඳින් දැනල් ක්තුදක් දැන්දකට සිල් සිල් දැනල් සිල් ක්තුදක් යෝගත තාපය සිල් කෝපාම කෙන්න වලට කිරීමට දින දක්ටෝරු දැන්දක ක්තුදකට දැන්දක හොඳින් දැනල් කිරීමට, දරයින් සිල් ක්තුදක් දැනල් සම නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, සම සම සම නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, සම නෙකෙන්න, සම සම නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින සම සම සහ නෙකෙන්න, දින සම සම සම නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, දින නෙකෙන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, සියන්න, I think we'd have a better shot on the infant liability versus the EOC in there, too. I'm sorry. I'm not following. I thought you were going to ask counsel during this budget process to change our policy from a 10 percent, which is, again, just a standing policy, to maybe go to closer to 20 and include the EOC in our package, which is about 20 million, which would bring us up close to 18, 19 percent. Well, actually, what we all we had planned to do with the EOC and the communications piece was ask for authorization to move forward. And again, we're not expecting the EOC to be finished until 2010. So the first debt payment on it would be 2011. And we have a significant falling off of our debt service in 2012. Okay. I thought you just said you were taking the EOC portion as well to the rating agencies. No, no, no. So you're just taking the same thing? Just taking the current package of everything outside of those two and then trying to sell what will actually just put us at, and I don't mean just, I don't mean to minimize it, but it will put us at 12 percent. Okay. And can we, Carrie, can either one of you describe, I mean, I know there's a lot of people watching about what a structural imbalance, and the mayor said that and has addressed all people, saying what does that really mean? Okay. A structural imbalance is when you use funds from, carried forward from the prior year to meet your expenditure obligations in the next year, which is what we are doing this year in 2008, we budgeted $13.5 million to come forward from 2007, and we're spending that. So we are now projecting nothing to carry forward. So the structural imbalance is that it's not true revenue. It's money that was brought forward from a prior period. If you also define it as revenue, it's not adequate to meet what you're spending. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Or in the private sector, you made a profit last year, and you use it up this year. That's right. Right. That's right. Okay. We have Council Member Gordon. Thank you. I had one last question. And either you or Jerry, it had to do with the risk management fund. Yes, ma'am. And keeping that at fiscal year 07 levels. Can you help me understand this? Is this, are we, we are not increasing our coverage? Is that basically what that means? Well, we're self-insured for a lot of our insurance. I mean, how you represent that, we're going to have to pay our obligations no matter what our obligations are. So this is really a projection that says that we think we're going to have enough money within, without that piece that we're not funding to meet all of our obligations. So we're not putting money in our self-insurance fund to do this? That's right. Okay. I'm sorry. And on that whole risk management piece, some of the money that we hold in the reserve, as you know, takes a very long time to spend out. Right. So what we would, what we would recommend is that we back off just a little bit this year, and then in 2010 we start, start going back. And get to the point that we're holding 100% of what we are projecting our obligations to be over the long run. Okay. Now, I notice movement towards you. Is there another comment about that? Jim Deaton. I just want to make clear, I thought I heard you say we were not putting any money into the risk management fund. Yes, we are. Yes, it's at the 07 level. Yes, yes. So there is money going in. I thought I had heard you say or make a comment. I may have. I don't know. I may have. But we're keeping it at 07 levels. We are putting some of it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member McCord, then Ellinger, then Beard. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member McCord, then Ellinger, then Beard. Commissioner, just real quickly, I want to shift gears over to PDR. And there's a, the mayor had made an ask for increase in PDR and had mentioned, was talking about the matching dollars and so forth. And I wanted to see if you could speak to that just a little bit about, because so many folks don't quite understand, A, you know, what the PDR program is and so forth. But what I'd like for you to speak to, if you could, is what we are doing, how we fund that. Is it a bond? Is it cash? And then secondarily, with this increase, is that to capture more monies that are out there that are, you know, 50 cents on the dollar or $2 for a dollar? Would you mind speaking to that? I probably will not do the program justice. I think Billy Van Pelt is the only person in government who can actually do justice to the program. But it is a combination of local, state, and federal money. We have been bonding our portion, and in 08, that piece is $2 million. Billy was advised by the federal government that there was another $400,000 plus available for matching money if we were willing to come up with the $400,000 on our end. And that is in the mayor's proposed budget. So we will be getting additional federal revenue into the program because of the increased participation from the local government. Now, exactly what the split is from the state and from the federal government, I can't speak to that without some more notes in front of me. But we did increase our level of participation to take advantage of some additional funds that were offered by the federal government. And I wanted to just bring highlight to that, that there was, that there is matching money, and that's the reason for the increase. It's not some arbitrary line moving and so forth. And also the budgetary impact to bonding that $2.4 million or whatever, when does that, when do we see that? Okay, there's no cash in this budget for that particular bond, for any of these bond projects. We'll sell these bonds after January 1, 09, and the first debt payment would be due in 2010. Okay. Thank you so much. Mr. Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. A couple of questions. I think Council Member Stinnett at one point asked you about our bonding, and you were going to give maybe a spreadsheet of each year and what all, because some of it's going to be in 09, some of it's going to be in 10. And are we going to, do we have that coming here in the near future? I think what Council Member Stinnett has been asking me for for about 15 months now is actually, or my understanding of what he wants, is how much bond money is still sitting in some accounts that we've bonded in the past, and actually I'm waiting for some additional accounting procedures for when we have the audit in 07 to be able to get that. But now if you want to know what projects, I mean, what bonds we have done to this point and what the debt. I'd like to just see a whole, because we always use this word, we're going to bond things. And it sounds like, well, hey, we don't have to worry about it. We're bonding it. Well, that means we've got to still pay for it. Yeah. It concerns me sometimes that people talk about bonding like that makes it free. Exactly. And it really doesn't. I'll be doing a presentation to the Council of the whole on debt, so I will include in that whole issue. And then how much each one is going to pay and just kind of have a spreadsheet of all that so we know what, because we're not paying this year, we've eventually got to pay for it and pay it off. And I guess the second question, and Jerry tried to explain it, and I didn't quite understand, the lump sum termination pay, and I guess that's where we don't really know we have a number in here of 6.4, and then since we don't know who's going to leave or what, it's hard to put a finite number on it. But if it goes over 2 million, then whatever is over 2 million then is going to go towards the rainy day fund. Well, we would reserve the authority to ask to be able to go into the rainy day fund. If our revenue should be at that point a little bit ahead of where we think we might be, we might come back and ask you to appropriate that money out of additional revenue that has come in. It just kind of depends on the financial picture at the time. We will see these retirements somewhere between, we believe, between the June and December time frame. December would be the end of people who are leaving because of the change in the rules at the state level. So December 31st, they'd have to do it by then? Right. Right. If it makes a difference to them, and for every person in government, it doesn't. It depends on a lot of different things, when you've got raises and all kinds of things go into that calculation. So we did budget 2 million. That would be what you all would have known in the older days as a personnel credit, because we don't know where those retirements are going to be. So you couldn't go in and budget the payout or the rehires in any particular division. So those are being held in an across-the-government account. Does that help? Yeah, that helps. Another question on the vacant positions. We're going to take those off the books. So will they still be authorized or will they be eliminated? I am recommending that we continue to have those positions authorized but not funded, because, again, we don't know where our retirements are going to be. And if we have to come back to council every time to create a position, then we're adding another two to four weeks to every hire. And what we would recommend is let's leave those on the books for now, not fund them. When we get to this point next year, we would hope that we're going to be close to what we would consider government to be right-sized. And at that time, if there are positions that we need to abolish, that we abolish them then. But just for this period of time where everything is really in a state of flux, we would like to keep them authorized, just not funded. On the revenue growth, where are we using our basis for that revenue growth, the .3 percent? Are we using on? I'm obligated myself to bring something back to you on that particular issue. Council Member Stennett had raised that issue, and I don't have anything in front of me to be able to speak to that, but I'll send you something in writing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. A couple of things, if you might. My guess would be that the retirements are going to take place sometime after the end of October, because there are three pay periods in October. That's our guess. That's what I guess. When you're putting together this schedule of what-ifs, are you taking head count into consideration? Absolutely. As relates to the potential retirements? Yes. Because I would like to see what 3.9 percent July 1st of 08 would look like, and 2 percent July 1st. I'll add that to the chart that I'm obligated to bring back to you. It's going to end up in a three-page chart, I understand. We'll give you a lot of scenarios. And the other question involves the day treatment center. We own that building, do we not? We do own that building. It has a bond against it. It has a bond against it. Yes. And it was built specifically to fulfill its mission, I believe. Is Ferry County Schools going to buy that premise? Are we going to make a deal? What's the conventional wisdom as of this point? If Marlene can correct me. I don't think, I think that it has been discussed, but there's no decision. Okay. But we could end up with an empty building is one of the options, I guess. I assume that that could be an option, yes, sir. And a building maybe that wouldn't move on the market because it's built for the specific purpose of being a day treatment center, I would guess. And I'm just making these assumptions, not necessarily to talk to you, but for my colleagues to hear it and for the public to hear it. That's all I had. Thank you. I think Council Member Gordon can add to this, and then Council Member Lane. I will defer to the chair of our links if he wants to speak to this, but the day treatment center was discussed in our link meeting with Commissioner Helm, and it is my impression from her answers about the day treatment center that they are in the very beginning phases of discussions. So there's nothing known about that at this point. Would you concur, chair? Thank you. Council Member Lane. Commissioner, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about the economic task force that you and some of the council members and some outside people are involved in, specifically the issue of projecting the long-term revenues for the government and also projecting operating expenses and how things like evaluating the cost of the EOC over five years, what it's going to cost to operate and how you can plug those into your estimates. Could you just address that a little bit? Well, I will. We've had several really healthy meetings, I think. Some folks from U.K. have really contributed to the revenue side of the picture, talking about how Lexington's revenue is linked in some ways to what goes on in Frankfurt. You heard from Ken Trosky last week. He had made a presentation to the task force with some of the same information but really in more detail. We also have heard from Dr. David Wildeson, and he's provided some insight. I would say that where we want to go from the ñ if you had to make a decision right now, based on the information that we've heard from them, clearly we would want to involve these people in the future on helping us project. We have a pretty standard procedure that we use around here, and they may be able to enlighten us a bit more. At the next meeting, we're going to be taking a look at projecting expenditures. And clearly, I think because we've had this kind of rule of accepting anything anybody wants to give us and buying things, that one of the things that we need to do a better job of is looking at the long-term cost of acquisitions and gifts. And we have not done that specifically around the EOC. I'm sure that Commissioner Bennett and some of the folks working on that project have looked at it. But we need to develop a way that we automatically bring that to you. If we're adding something or buying something new, we need to be able to project for you what that's going to cost you over the long haul. Because clearly, this problem that we have this year, while we hope it's not going to be as drastic as it is from here on out, we still are going to be in the situation that we have nearly 70% of our budget tied up in personnel. So when you have so little flexibility left, when we have 70% personnel and 10% in debt, then all of a sudden when you're working on a 20% margin, you really can't afford to make bad decisions. So we will do a better job of bringing to you recommendations with long-term implications for funding. That was very well said. I agree with you on that. I would like to add one other comment on the PDR program, just to follow up Council Member McCord's comments, is that I've stayed on that fairly closely because I do represent the 12th District and a lot of the PDR funds are invested. And we will be, that is all bonding this year, the $2.4 million, and we would get matching dollars from the federal and or state government for the same amount that we're bonding. So for each dollar we bond, we get another dollar in federal or state money. In addition, Billy Van Pelt, who is the head of that department, has evidently been able to work out some improvements in the way they operate. The PDR program is actually reducing the cost of operating that department by approximately $35,000 to $40,000. That will be, I think that's reflected in the budget, but there may be some additional savings that are not in there yet. But that actually will reduce the cost of PDR from the operating budget. That's all I have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Lyman. Dr. Stephens? As long as we're talking about revenue, do you have March? I presented March at Budget and Finance. Oh. I don't have April. I mean April. No. No, you don't have April yet. No, I don't have April, but we did present March at the last Budget Finance Committee. That things didn't look quite as bleak. To what extent? Just curious. Not as bleak meaning translated. Well, I think that we were really hoping that, and I know this is not a professional wet tank, we didn't think that we, the revenues seemed to be holding at a slight dip rather than getting more severe. So when we were thinking we might be short by $5 million to $8 million for the last presentation, I think we said three to five, probably closer to the $5 million shortage. But for the council as a whole, we're watching very closely the expenditure side of that, and we're doing very well in government of holding the line on expenditures to ensure that that shortage and revenue will not find us in a deficit situation at the end of the year. Any other council members? Council Member Lane was the last one I had on the list. Anybody else? No? Okay. Any questions? Thank you, Commissioner Coe. Jerry? Yes. Thank you. Since there were a lot of questions about the debt and revenue projections, I would just like to point out that from the committee of hold meetings that have been scheduled and I think approved by council, just for clarity's sake, debt, there's going to be a separate committee of hold meeting on May the 6th, next Tuesday at 1130, and Keena will be bringing additional information to answer your questions and also give you more background on the whole bonding picture. And then on May the 8th, the Thursday following that Tuesday at 5 o'clock, there will be a discussion on revenue projections. So I thought I'd just bring that to your attention. That's the day when we've got the management partners all day meeting, basically, right? I think so. Yes, it is. I think so. By the way, that's in the, if you all aren't aware of it, that's in the Phoenix building, third floor, I believe. Third floor conference room, yes. Phoenix building. Council Member James. No, it may not be that big of a deal, but when you're preparing any additional documents, can you check the FY's and just make sure they're consistent? Because some of them say 08 and then I even saw 07 on the top of the second sheet, just for recall purposes. That would help. Absolutely. Thank you. Well, we've talked about it a lot. We're sort of out of sync with the presentation. Can you kind of bring us back into sync so we don't have to discuss duplicate things that we've already discussed? So I think where we are, maybe if on your schedules, you know, got, it's the second part that I passed out. I think what would be best. May I ask, Jerry? Yes, sir. Okay, you've got it up on the screen now. All right. If we could, let's go to page four, which is schedule B. And this particular schedule kind of gives you the primary cost contained in the personnel accounts. We'll kind of just go over this pretty quickly. Obviously, the large items here are under the civil service and non-civil service related. And that's primarily the elimination of vacant positions. The $8.4 million under police and fire salaries. Just to reiterate, that is cost that's primarily associated with collective bargaining. The other pay, although it incorporates several things, the other pay taxable, it's kind of midway on that page, $4.2 million difference. That is lump sum terminations and other benefits where you're showing a decrease of $2.6 million. That's a combination of reduction in life, health, and dental expense because you're going to have fewer employees. That's kind of the goal. And then the last item there is the personnel credit. And it's tied to where we're eliminating, you know, the vacant positions. Also, the goal is to have 180 positions fewer. So that has been part of that has been the lapse. You know, the way that was constructed in the past is that if you have an expense, then if you're not, if that employee is not going to be on the payroll, then it creates a lapse. So primarily, when you reduce one, you have to reduce the other. And there's where the $10 million change is coming from. The next page on page 5, it's schedule B1. This included in this region. Jerry, excuse me just a second. It looks like we've got some questions. Okay. That's fine. Council Member Stanton. I just think it would be easier if we could stop. Yeah, it probably would. Go ahead. On the personnel credit, again, that number from 08, this current budget we're in, includes the police fire we didn't or have proposed not to hire, et cetera, right? Right. And all vacant positions. And then the recovery, is that money coming from dedicated funds into the general fund, like for sanitary sewer folks and things like that? The last item on that page? Yeah. That is from grants, from my understanding it is. But it's also from dedicated funds, too, right? It's funding positions in Lexical and different areas. Okay. I just want to make sure of that. Thank you, Jerry. Appreciate this information. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Lane. Yeah, for the people that are watching on TV and maybe for some of our council members, including me, could you look at the first line, the civil service salaries, and they're showing from 59 to 48 million. That's an $11.2 million reduction. All right. Is some of that reduction where jobs have been carried as unfilled for a whole year, they're sort of carried on, and then what we've done essentially is deleted those? Yes. And that's what Ken was talking about. We're not going to fund vacant positions, but we're going to leave them on the book for complement or for the employee strength. So it saves an approval process of four to six weeks if it's determined that that position eventually needs to be filled. All right. Well, what about the bottom line down there where you have the personnel credit? Is there some offset between the first line and the personnel credit? My understanding, the way they used to calculate that is the credit came from where you had employees that were on the books, but the positions wouldn't be hired. You know, there's a lag in when they would be hired or they wouldn't be hired at all. So if you're going to show the expense in one category, then there's a savings by not hiring that employee on January 1st or June 1st of that physical year. So it creates a savings or a credit, so it's the offset primarily. Okay. Well, the reason I ask that is if the civil service salaries are going to decline by $11.2 million but we're adding back personnel credit of $10.3 million, then it appears the only savings we have is about $900,000. Yes, that's one way to look at it. Is that approximately the correct amount for the number of personnel that we would? I don't have the exact numbers, but generally speaking, I would say that philosophy is correct. All right. Do you think that if somebody were going to run a little analysis on that, would it be the human resources or would it be more in budgeting that we'd have to do that? I think budgeting because budgeting actually puts the personnel dollars, and I think they work with HR when they develop forecast numbers for personnel costs. Well, then I'd like to request that we get a small report on that to show, you know, actually how much savings we have in personnel costs by the fact that we were not filling some positions and that we took some out of the budget. Okay, the vacant positions. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. You're welcome. Any other questions? Council Member Stanton. I just want to add on some of what Council Member Lane was asking. When you said the $11 million is only $900,000, that's not necessarily true because you've got to look down there. That credit includes police and fire salaries, so you've got to add $8 million to that and several others. So you've got a total government salary. I think that's what you're looking for, right? You can't look at those two numbers and take them out. You've got to look at all across the board. So if we can get all of them. Thank you. Any other questions? On Schedule B-1, page 5, included in the Mayor's proposed budget is allowance for 25 positions, new positions to be created at a cost of $1.2 million. Approximately $960,000 of this total will go to the general fund. So I thought I would just show that to you. I've got a question, Chair. Okay. Track back just a little bit. Give us the theme of this document. How did you determine this template or what you decided to illuminate through these schedules? Just context is what I'm trying to get at. Oh, okay. If you go back to the summary page, is that what you're talking about or the one we just covered? Yeah. No, I'm talking about how you give us the theme and the context of this template, of how you organized this, why you chose this methodology to share with us a budget summary. Okay. Primarily, the whole Mayor's proposed budget for the general fund, if you look at the summary page, it lists all your revenue, all your appropriation, and so on. And it shows you the change between the Mayor's proposed budget for 2009 and what the adopted budget was in 2008. If you look on the left-hand side, like on total revenue schedule A, there's a supplemental schedule there that highlights what the primary changes between the two periods are for the revenues. And under appropriation, like for personnel, partner agencies, debt service, and other operating costs, there are supporting schedules that it refers to that gives you more detail behind the change. I mean, I jumped through some of these because we had discussed many of the facets that I was going to cover, but I didn't want to just go through it and just cover it twice. But if there's any questions on any of the schedules that maybe I've passed through, we can circle back. For me, for example, I think this schedule A-1 is pretty relevant because it shows a 10-year trail. Right. And it shows if we're doing, you know, it shows where we are over 10 years. And the last time we had a dip like this was in 2001, so 2002, right? Yeah. So and the purpose of this schedule, the A-1, it does a couple of things. One, it gives you what the prior 10-year growth or change has been, and also it demonstrates that with the forecast that's been proposed with 2009 for revenues, the change over the prior year is like 4.29%, which is slightly below the 10-year average of 4.86%. Yeah. But if we're looking at this schedule, we're showing that this is the first time in 10 years based on the projected actual revenues of $262 million, right? Right. It's the first time in 10 years that we've had a decline in gross revenues. Yes. First time, maybe longer than that because we only have it to 2000. Yeah, I mean, we can get the numbers prior to that. So when was the last time that we, but then, Keena, you were saying that we may not actually be at this number, or we are at, you can just, you think this is still a good number? This is an amended number, so it takes into account that we expect, we don't expect to make it public. Right, okay. I think actually you had asked for a document like this last year. Yeah, I think I did. Also, and that's why I went ahead and included it. Yeah, right. Be nice to have another column over there that gave us a gross domestic product for Lexington and Fayette County, kind of a GDP, see how we're tracking with our economy. Right, okay. We can have that for our revenue. I think maybe you can get it, I mean, if we can get that number. Yes, I think we can. Get that number. Or we'll see if we can. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Is there anything else that you think you need to particularly illuminate for us, as far as headlines, highlights, that you know that we're going to be interested in, or do any other council members, having looked at this document, have any questions or comments about it, or need further? The only thing that I would probably amplify, just for background purposes, on Schedule C is the, and it's straight out of the budget, but historically we've talked about partner agencies, and the mayor has indicated that other than funding for social agencies that are tied to the Commissioner of Social Services Agency, they were not reduced by the 10%. And I think this document supports that pretty well. And then on D1, we talked about D1, which is the bonding, the proposed bonding. You can see the primary projects that are scheduled to be bonded, and then we can get into more discussion about that next Tuesday. And then on Schedule E, what you have there, it shows a reduction for the operating accounts, professional contractual services, professional development. It's the other operating expenses. It describes where the mayor had indicated that they had reduced these type of accounts, 1.5 million, with the exception of the fixed costs related to utilities, general utilities, and the required maintenance costs for vehicles and building repairs. And besides that, unless you have any other questions or something, that's pretty much what I want to convey today. Okay. Thanks, Jerry. Any council members got any questions of Mr. Southers? No further questions. Okay, I think at the last work session, we talked about this meeting, and there was some thought it may have been mine so it can be dismissed easily, but I was suggesting that maybe we might have a links report if you all have the inclination. When I looked around last time, there wasn't much nodding of heads at the work session. Pardon? Premature? The reason you got some blank looks is that some of the links haven't even met yet. So I'll speak for my link and say we haven't started our meeting yet, so we have no report. Actually, it was Council Member Stennett that was giving me the blank look last time, and he's giving it again. I can't explain Council Member Stennett's blank look. I've been to a couple of meetings, so that was mine. Council Member Blues, have you had any meetings? Our link is about halfway through our discussions. Okay. Anticipate completing those tomorrow. That's quite illuminating. Yes, sir. Council Member Lane, I believe you've had a couple of meetings. Yeah, we are the public safety link, and we've completed all of our meetings. And we're in the process now of trying to file some of our recommendations and getting additional information as a follow-up to those meetings. Thank you, sir. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm Chair of the General Services, and we have met with the appropriate people in that division, and we are in the process of putting ours together. So we might have to re-meet with them, but at this point we've met with them, and just our links have to get back together and kind of discuss what changes and things we'll be presenting. Thank you, sir. Council Member Stennett. On the general government link, we are done with our meetings, and we just need to sit down and compile everything. So we'll be ready to go here soon. Okie doke. Thank you. Council Member Dr. Stephens. Oh, I was going to ask Mr. Southers, when is the town meeting scheduled for the links report? The 21st. I don't have that scheduled with me. It's the 21st? The 21st. May 20th. 20th. Let's see. 20th at 1 o'clock. 1 o'clock, yes. Yes. Fifth floor. Right. Anyone need a schedule? The calendar? I've got extra copies. That's okay. I'll put it in your box. All right. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, how about a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Motion second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. We're adjourned. We're adjourned. We're adjourned. We're adjourned. We're adjourned. We're adjourned.