# Budget, Finance & Economic Development Committee - November 7, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · November 7, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4887 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4887?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-11-07 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 10,931 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a committee meeting to discuss financial matters and development incentives. The meeting focused on two main informational agenda items: a Fund Balance Discussion and Tax Increment Financing presentation. During the session, committee members received informational briefings on both topics without taking formal action on either item. The meeting included three motions and votes on various procedural or related matters, though the specific nature of these votes was not detailed in the available records. One member of the public provided comments during the public comment period. The meeting served primarily as an educational session for committee members to review the county's fund balance status and learn about tax increment financing as a development tool. Both agenda items were treated as informational presentations rather than action items requiring formal decisions or policy changes. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took action on three motions during the meeting, all of which passed. **Budget Stabilization Fund Allocation** Vice Mayor Kaye made a motion to allocate $745,000 to be repaid to the budget stabilization fund. The motion passed by voice vote, with Fred Brown casting the only dissenting vote. **Account Transfer Motion** Council Member Bill Farmer motioned to move an uncommitted amount into account 1105, with Council Member Allengore providing the second. This motion passed by roll call vote with no recorded opposition. **Health Insurance and Budget Assignments** Council Member Lamb made a motion to endorse assignments for health insurance reserve and budget stabilization. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. All three motions were approved, indicating unanimous or near-unanimous support from the Committee for these financial decisions. The specific vote tallies for ayes, nays, and abstentions were not recorded in the meeting data, though individual voting positions were noted where available. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for these votes in the provided meeting data.* ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the committee during the public comment period. David Wilson spoke regarding a billing issue related to a property he had sold. Wilson expressed concerns about the accuracy of the billing system and questioned the audit procedures currently in place. He raised issues about how billing is handled when properties change ownership and sought clarification on the processes used to ensure billing accuracy. *Note: Transcript timestamps were not available for this public comment period.* ## Contested Items The committee meeting featured two significant areas of disagreement among members. **Employee Bonuses** A heated discussion emerged regarding the distribution of employee bonuses. Some council members advocated for restructuring the bonus system to create a more equitable distribution that would favor lower-income employees. The debate centered on whether the current bonus allocation method adequately addressed pay equity concerns within the organization. While the specific participants in this discussion were not identified in the available materials, the disagreement reflected broader concerns about compensation fairness across different employee pay scales. **Corrections Assessment Funding** The committee faced a split vote on a proposal to allocate $40,000 for an external assessment of the corrections facility. The disagreement focused on two primary concerns: the timing of conducting such an assessment and questions about its potential effectiveness. Some members expressed reservations about whether this was the appropriate time to undertake the assessment, while others questioned whether the proposed evaluation would produce meaningful results that would justify the expenditure. The $40,000 allocation represented a significant financial commitment, and the division among committee members highlighted differing perspectives on both fiscal responsibility and the urgency of addressing corrections facility issues. The split vote indicates that the committee was closely divided on this matter, though the final outcome of the vote was not specified in the available documentation. Both contested items reflect underlying tensions about resource allocation and organizational priorities, with the employee bonus debate touching on equity concerns and the corrections assessment funding revealing disagreements about timing and effectiveness of proposed initiatives. ## Fund Balance Discussion The committee reviewed the fund balance presentation for the end of fiscal year 2019 as agenda item number 3. This informational discussion focused on the district's financial position and its implications for bond ratings and contingency planning. **Key Participants:** - Mr. Holbrook - Mr. Scott **Discussion Topics:** The presentation covered the district's fund balance status at the conclusion of fiscal year 2019. Committee members examined how the current fund balance levels could impact the district's bond ratings, which affect the cost of borrowing for capital projects and other financial obligations. A significant portion of the discussion centered on economic contingency fund goals. The committee reviewed targets for maintaining adequate reserves to handle unexpected financial challenges or economic downturns that could affect district operations. **Financial Planning Considerations:** The discussion addressed the balance between maintaining sufficient reserves for financial stability while ensuring resources are appropriately allocated to support educational programs and operations. Committee members considered how fund balance levels align with best practices for school district financial management. **Outcome:** This was an informational presentation with no formal action taken. The discussion provided committee members with important context about the district's fiscal health and reserve policies as they relate to long-term financial planning and creditworthiness. The fund balance review serves as a regular component of the district's financial oversight, helping ensure responsible stewardship of public resources while maintaining the financial flexibility needed to respond to changing circumstances. ## Tax Increment Financing Mr. Holbrook delivered a presentation on the current status of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects in Lexington during agenda item number 4. The presentation covered three main areas: the current status of existing TIF projects, ongoing challenges with state participation in TIF funding, and the future prospects for TIF financing in the city. The presentation was informational in nature, providing committee members with an update on how TIF districts are performing and what obstacles the city faces in implementing and maintaining these economic development tools. TIF financing allows municipalities to use future property tax increases from development projects to fund current infrastructure and development costs within designated districts. Mr. Holbrook addressed specific challenges the city has encountered with securing state participation in TIF projects, which can be crucial for the success of larger development initiatives. The presentation also outlined potential opportunities and constraints for future TIF funding in Lexington. No formal action was taken on this agenda item, as it served as an informational briefing to keep committee members informed about the city's TIF program status and strategic considerations for future economic development projects. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Allocate $745,000 to be repaid to the budget stabilization fund - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move uncommitted amount into account 1105 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Endorse assignments for health insurance reserve and budget stabilization --- ## Full transcript ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you, Commissioner. Good afternoon, everyone. We'll go over the top four today through September. The first slide is just a look at the September month to date versus budget. As you can see, we're over budget in September. Now looking at it from a year-to-date perspective, we are $1.2 million below budget in the top four year to date. All four of them are below budget. Three of the four, however, improved $700,000 versus where we were in August, which is a trend that we wanted to see, we hope to see through the end of the first quarter as we carry over into the second quarter. Franchise fees did go a little bit towards the other way. I would point out on employee withholding and net profit, our refunds are up year over year, which is contributing to some of the variance. Looking at it versus prior year, we're $688,000 below prior year. Two of the top four are below prior year, employee withholding and net profit. As I mentioned, they both have refunds to about half a million dollars up versus prior year, which is contributing to that. Also in prior year, there were three pay periods in July that was not in July of this year. Hopefully we experience that pickup later on in this first half of the fiscal year as it comes around in December. Insurance premium is showing pretty strong growth of $434,000 versus prior year, and franchise fees are up $175,000 versus prior year. And I did look a little bit in October as things are coming in on franchise fees specifically, and we seem to pick up some in the month of October. Are there any questions on top four? Yes, let's start with Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Trustee. This time last year I had my colleague, former Council Member Kevin Stenitz sitting here, and I listened to some of Kevin's ideas. And his biggest concern was the net profit. And it was really down this time last year, and it's been down. And now I'm looking at this year, it's considerably a lot more than last year. And I'm just trying to figure out how, if we're going at this pace, how do you continue to go this way when you're relying on two of your biggest ones and the net profit to me is what really tells you what the economy is going and how things are going now, unless you've got something to change that. But I really, these numbers really terrify me. Because as you look at the unemployment thing, the numbers were pretty good, but we still have to hire the same firemen, the same policemen to do these kinds of work for the same people working and all that, and that's only so much that can come in. But when I look at this, when I see net profit going up, I feel a lot better knowing that we can pay these people. But this is, I just grew up with my former colleague, Council Member Stenitz, who sits here, and the net profit. I mean, unless you've got something to tell me to make me feel better, I just don't feel good about it at all. Well, it's definitely a concern. But I will say, as I was talking about, the refunds are up $300,000 in net profit, which is refunds of prior years. The actual intake of this year, we're almost at budget with those refunds in there. So I feel a little better this year at this point than I did in prior years. But we're only three months into the year, and we still have our biggest part of net profit, which is April 15th, come along. We still have a strong December potential with our estimated payments, and we're just going through that here in September and October. It's a concern. You have to pay attention to it. I want to hear your answers to make sure that I assume if the Council Member Stenitz was sitting here, he would have the same looking at the net profit being dropped the way it has. It just seems like every year, the last few months I've been watching, it just seems like it hasn't kicked in yet. It concerns me. It can kick in in the latter half, as it did the past fiscal year as well. We just have to keep watching it, Council Member Maloney. No more questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hello. We'll look at the other revenues now. Really, the only thing to point out on here that's positive is the services category, and that's due to the detention center, our fees out there. And then the last line down there on the other income, that's penalties and interest. If you notice a couple slides back on the code enforcement lien abatements, those were up over prior years. So penalties and interest in our detention center are positive highlights of our revenue. Overall, for the first quarter, we're down $624,000 to budget on our revenues. So we'll go to the expense side. You'll see here we have a positive variance in personnel, and that positive variance is driven by a couple of things. The payouts, whenever people leave service with us, we have a positive variance there. However, we know we're expecting and we're projecting out payouts to come in the month of January. That's whenever a lot of our public safety leave. And so there will be pressures on that variance in January. The other component to that is our health insurance. We have actually spent 7% less than we did the same time last year. So last year's fiscal year, the first quarter, we spent 7% less on our health insurance subsidy than we did last year. So that's something positive to highlight, certainly. But those two are what are making up that positive variance there in personnel. On our operating, it's the same things. It's the professional services, repairs and maintenance, utilities. That's what's making up that 1.1. Overall, with our expenses, we're 2.9 positive, which when you take our revenues into account, we're at a positive change in fund balance variance of 2.3 million. So it's our savings and our expenses that are helping us to overcome that negative variance in our revenues. This is comparing to prior year. So revenues are $100,000 less than where we were same time last year in total. And then on our expenses, you can see we're actually spending slightly less than we were same time last year. The big category there is in our debt service. And that is we actually our budget for debt service has gone up 2.7 million. It's just the timing of when those payments are to be made compared to when they were made last year. So I don't want anybody to get excited about that one. But we will be spending more in debt service. Are there any questions? No one signed in, so you get a pass. Thank you very much, Director. The next items in your packet refer to our operating funds for your information only. And next we'll move on to item number three, which is our fund balance discussion. Welcome, Mr. Holbrook. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for letting us come and present the fund balance presentation for the end of fiscal year 2019. Just like we did last year, we want to start off and talk about how this relates to our overall financial condition and evaluation. Last year we put up this Moody's local government scorecard. Moody's is one of our bond rating agencies. And as we've talked on a few other presentations in the past year, there's only a certain percentage of our bond rating that we really have control over. It's about 50 percent. And of that, our fund balance and cash balance and the change in those amounts makes up the largest portion of what we can control for our bond rating. So whenever we come to talk to you all about fund balance, we're talking about probably the biggest impact we have on being able to move our bond rating either in a positive or a negative direction. For June 30, 2019, we saw a slight uptick in our fund balance as a percentage for the year. There's a 15 percent floor for AA-rated governments from Moody's. And so we saw it move up slightly from where it was last year. It was about 17.5 percent, moved up a little above 18 percent. And then Moody's also looks at how your fund balance has changed over time. So we'll show you a couple of graphs here in a second so you can see what those have looked like over the past little bit. As far as the five-year change, one of the biggest impacts for us was saving for the large legal settlement several years ago. It was about $17.7 million in FY 2017. And those are some of the things that bond rating agencies adjust for but to be cognizant of as we manage our fund balance position. So this is a graph of what our fund balance growth has been over time. As you can see, going up until 2017, we invested a lot in fund balance preparing for a large legal settlement. And then after that was paid out, we had a dollar amount increase, but it wasn't keeping pace with what our revenue growth was. So even though we were showing a stronger fund balance on paper, it wasn't keeping up with how much revenue growth we were experiencing and what you would expect to see if they were proportional. But this year, FY 2019, we did see, like I said, a tick back up away from that 15% floor. This shows the five-year change in fund balance. This is the second year where we've seen our fund balance position lower than it was five years ago. And like I mentioned, a lot of that is because of the legal settlement that we had in 2017, but it's something to be mindful of as we continue to make sure we're in a strong financial position. We planned for the legal settlement that we had, and so that's something that the bond rating agencies can adjust for, but something that they will continue to monitor and grade us on. Moving on specifically to economic contingency, we saw... So with our economic contingency fund, council has an ordinance that has a goal of 10% of revenues in economic contingency, and we've continued to see steady growth in both the dollar amount and the percent through fiscal year 2015. We haven't had the balance keep pace with our revenue growth proportionally since about 2016, even though we still have continued to put money in there year after year. Per the ordinance, we're supposed to report to council the amount it would be required to get to the 10% mark, and as of June 30, 2019, an additional $1,815,717 would be required to get to the 10% mark for our economic contingency fund. As we see revenue grow over time, it will require more to get to that 10% mark and maintain that. And this is a graph that shows how close we are in getting to that and how we've grown this really from 2010 until now a substantial amount, roughly $21 million. So we're getting very close to the 10% goal as we move forward. Next, moving on to Fund 1101, the general fund. We ended fiscal year 2019 with revenues exceeding budget by $3.7 million. The headers here refer to how much we were under or over budget, and then the subheadings where it talks about total revenue, that's the amount of total revenue we took in. We took in a total amount of $369.6 million, and our expenses were $359.7 million, most of those happening in personnel operating in our debt service, and then we had about $6 million of transfers, which were 6.8% over budget. Now that plays into our total fund balance. We saw an increase in fiscal year 2019 revenue over expense, which was offset by the spin down of those 1105 projects, the council allocated fund balance projects, and then a decrease in our asset value. The net impact overall was a growth of $3.61 million over 2018 in fund balance. And so this is the chart that we've presented before, and the top line is what we're referring to whenever we talk about growth in fund balance. It's $3.61 million. As you go down, you can see the growth in our economic contingency fund and some of our non-1101 funds that are in this fund balance. We still have assigned $4 million in health insurance reserve, $11.4 million for budget stabilization. And just a note on that, council approved spending approximately $750,000 out of that for the FY20 budget, and this is just reporting as of June 30, 2019. So since that happened after the end of the fiscal year, that wouldn't be reflected in these numbers. If you were to look at it sometime in June, then it would be showing that amount $750,000 lower. That leaves us with, and then we also have the fund balance capital projects, which is about $860,000. So that leaves us with $8.1 million of unassigned fund balance. If you look in the bottom right corner, we have some prepaids, PO rolls, and grand match rolls, and then our beginning fund balance, which we need to net out of that. And so that leaves approximately $2.2 million that's available for reallocation after all of our assignments and commitments. And I think Tyler Scott is here for the next slide. Thank you, council members. Give us a quick moment to talk about our administration's proposed recommendations. I have total respect and understanding of your prerogative to consider these and your own other projects and deliberate as you see fit from here. We do think it was important, though, to share, given the stressors on the administration and the government as a whole, some of the recommendations we would bring forward for your consideration as you proceed in this, though. I was going to say that $2.2 million of unassigned fund balance is a healthy balance, but I think in all that it's pretty razor thin, all things considered. We had to make some very difficult decisions very early in this year that may have, if we didn't make those decisions, may have made that number something significantly different in the opposite direction. And going into this current budget, a lot of those same decisions had to continue. And I say that because the people that bore the biggest brunt of those decisions were our employees. And I think everyone was absolutely right to put the supplement together, the one-time supplement back in the spring for our employees. And so we would ask for, first of all, I think we talked about this with every one of you two weeks ago, the CEO and myself. One thing we would recommend for your consideration is the replenishment of the stabilization fund that that initial supplement was made out of. That helps protect our CAFR as well as protects any future considerations we may have to absorb as pension legislation comes down the pipeline. With that being said, coming into this budget year, our employees continued to feel the brunt of additional cuts to operations. They felt the freezing of personnel and then the uncertainty of what the coming budgets might look like as far as any cost of living increases may come. So the second consideration we'd like to put in front of you is an additional one percent and the $500 hybrid, as you all decided on in the spring, for our employees again, which I believe we can get back out to them in early December, right around Christmas. I think that will go a long way in helping retention, help a long way in hopefully improving maintaining morale. I think we have a very dedicated workforce. I don't think morale is continuing to suffer, but I think it would go a long way in showing our appreciation for them. And I'll say that in all this, and rethink Lex as well, we have over 300 recommendations that have come in from these employees, and they have not stopped working as hard as they ever have. And so we thought this was an important consideration for everyone as we look at how to distribute this unbalance. The next consideration, of course, is for corrections. What we'd ask for your consideration is for $30,000 to go towards an external assessment, an outside organization that can come in and really help us in a very neutral way assess all the real, true issues out there. The mayor and myself have been out there a number of times. We've talked to officers, up to command staff. We've talked to our unions. We've talked to our director. We've gone back and looked at the transition reports, and we've read everything that's been put out there. And I think there's a lot of truth to a lot of our issues, and they're not that much different than what you hear from every other corrections facility across the state. The difference is this is ours, and there's improvements we can make, and we've got to take every step we can to try to make that happen. A good, neutral assessment will tell us what we're currently doing right and how to continue down that road and how to fix the really big problems that are plaguing us, that may set us apart from our peers. The additional $10,000 we would ask for in that is to address the – I'd say it's not an issue in itself. It is an underlying issue in every single thing we've heard across the board, and that is the overtime problem, the recruitment problem, which all just feeds this cycle. If we can put some additional money into helping our staff out there recruit additional employees, build a few more recruit class to close that vacancy list, we can do a lot more to alleviate the stressors that overtime puts on our employees out there. And then the last remaining balance in this would be the $670,000. We heard this throughout the entire budget cycle, and it wasn't missed on anyone. The council districts certainly did not give me the projects that needed funding in this current budget cycle. And there are a lot of other very good projects out there you could carry a long way with that kind of money. So we would defer to council to assess and deliver on how to divide up the rest of that, whether you wanted to go across districts or collectively decide on a set of projects. Certainly no strong feelings one way or the other, but those are the issues we wanted to put in front of you for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for your presentation. Mr. Holbrook, we appreciate it. Colleagues, I sent out on Friday a list. Several of you had asked what we had talked about in our own fund balance conversations. That email was submitted on Friday with about four items. In addition, as Mr. Scott mentioned, an employee supplement. I also listed a timeline of how we might go about meeting those should we choose to do so. So at this time, I will open it up for comments, questions of the administration, or amongst ourselves in our motions. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Chair. Tyler, if you wouldn't mind coming forward. Thanks so much. You and I have had a discussion on this 40K for this corrections, recruitment, marketing, and operations assessment. Yes, ma'am. Tell me what your timeline is for this, because I know that we have been planning a public safety committee. We have, I believe Council Member Brown put it in for me, the discussion of the survey that came back from some of the employees, and I'm not sure marketing is going to remedy some of those concerns. So kind of give me a little bit more specifics, if you wouldn't mind. The timeline on how long it would take to turn around an assessment, I'll defer to the Commissioner. Ma'am, honestly, the assessment itself, it will depend on how many of the topics they're able to address in a timely manner. We would assume from beginning to start it would take two to three months to get a pretty good understanding or a first report back. Obviously, to look at that and consider it, the faster we get started, obviously, the quicker it will end. I guess my question is, are you going to wait until after that comes through the public safety committee? Because we do have it on the agenda, and I'm sure there will be several members of the jail that will come, I would assume, that would come by and talk about some of the concerns that they have. Right. Well, with that being said, even with this possible assessment, if the funds are allocated, there are a number of things that the detention center and the personnel there are already working on to combat some of these issues. We've actually talked to some prospective consultants, and we've done some research looking at some of the things that we may be able to enact even before the assessment occurs. Give me an example. For instance, well, I know initially we talked about the 10,000, give or take, that would be used for recruiting. There are a number of changes that we've made in the recruiting process recently and also in the hiring process that's allowed us to be able to identify possibly one of the biggest classes that we've had in a number of years. Right now we're sitting about, last time I talked to Director Haney, about 32 possible employees that would start the next class. That's a much bigger class than what we've been able to get recently, and some outside of the box thinking whenever it came to the recruiting, and also using marketing strategies that other locations that have been moving or using, and we're copying those. And they've been successful? Well, I would say they are, yes. Just specifically based on the number of eligible candidates we have in the process for our December class, yes. Whenever you're talking about 32, when we have a class right now in that's only five employees, that is a huge difference. With that being said, whenever you look at this, I think anything that you would consider on the list of the complaints, we're actively approaching and addressing in some way in a positive manner. With that being said, having an outside entity come in and give suggestions. And some of the areas that this could include of the scope of work in relation to this is we're talking about organizational structure, policy, operational orders, training, direct supervision, leadership processes, personnel retention recruitment, attrition rate, discipline process, population reduction, facility design, hospitalization and guard duty processes. So we're going to be asking the consultants to look at a number of things. Sounds pretty extensive. I would just ask if maybe you could possibly wait until we have that one particular item in the planning and public safety so you all could hear, because I think that's important that we can hear the concerns, you hear the concerns, and then maybe you could, you know, forward those concerns to this potential consultant, because they're not here. I mean, I know they're objective, but they're certainly not here in Lexington or work at the jail, and I think that's important that they have this information. Well, as you know, we do have somewhat of a list of the concerns that have already been passed along to us. That's why we're addressing some of those matters already. If it behooves the council to hold off on contacting a consultant. We just have a lot of consultants in my history, and I just think the more information that we can grab up front and pass along, it serves us better and it serves them better. That's my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. And I do appreciate all this information that has been discussed up front and then the e-mails that you have sent us for a better conversation today. I really do appreciate that. And knowing what we discussed at the end of our budget links and to know what we had talked about even in follow-up presentations during our standing committees. So I would like to just go ahead and put it out there that I totally support, as nobody is going to be surprised about this, but repaying the money back into the Budget Stabilization Fund as much as I harped and fussed about it. I definitely am supportive of that. And while I am also supportive of the additional employee supplement, because of the fact that we have heard it from so many different parts of the government, so many different areas of the employees, that we were unable to give a cost-of-living increase to our non-collective bargaining employees. And I think this is another opportunity to be able to show them that, and across the board, not just to one specific area. I think it's important that we show them how much that we stick to our word when we said we were trying to do something more for them. The other thing is that I know that several of you were in attendance when the Explorium came and presented to my committee. And I feel like that they have stepped up to the plate. I think they have made some changes, and I think they're continuing to do so. And I would like to also support them by restoring their funding of the $41,250. So I'm putting these out here just because I don't want to supersede any further conversation, but I just wanted to go ahead and state my thoughts on this. Those are the three things that I'm pretty excited that we could maybe follow up on and actually do, and I'd be willing to move those forward today if the will of my colleagues would support it. But I don't want to stop the conversation yet, but I just thought I'd put it out there. So thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Two things. First, on the repay, the budget stabilization funds, I believe Council is already on record when we had the budget process in the spring to make that allocation to our employees and to commit to placing that money back in the budget stabilization fund if it existed. So I would like to move that forward today. I'll make a motion in a minute, but I would like to hold the discussion of the other items to be included when Council has its special meeting on the 12th, which is about the fund balance, so that we can see all of the issues, all of the suggestions that Council may have, including the ones that we talked about in the spring. There may be additional suggestions, but I think everybody received an email about getting your own recommendations in so that we can consider those at the 12th. So I'll make just that one motion, which is to allocate $745,000 to be repaid to the budget stabilization fund. So moved. Second. There's a motion. There's a second. Any conversation or comments? Council Member Lamb. I guess I will ask. I know it's just there's been two or three different numbers. This says $745,000. The email we got was $750,000. I'm really curious as to what the real number is. I even heard $760,000 even somewhere down the path. I'm assuming that number is what we actually got expensed. $750,000 was just an estimate. It's actually $744,000, $468,000, so $745,000. Okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you so much. Any other comments on the motion on the table? The motion now is for $745,000, which I believe replaces what was expensed. Did you make it $750,000? Oh, $745,000. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Maloney, you're not signed on this item, correct? Right. Okay. Any other comments on this particular motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Thank you. Please note Council Member Fred Brown's opposition. Otherwise, the motion passes. Council Member Maloney. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor Kaye wasn't finished. I apologize. Unless there are objections, I would also want to move to have this reported out this afternoon so that we can put this in motion in a timely fashion. So moved. Motion is second. Any comments on the report out? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. I'll report that out this afternoon. Okay. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I appreciate the administration with the recommendation, and I appreciate putting the $745,000 back in. There's a couple things that I want to go on record that I don't support. I didn't support it when we did it the first time, and that was the way we did the bonuses. I didn't support taking it out of the money, and I didn't support the way you all gave over 600 people making way more money on a bonus than 907 employees. And I don't know if this is the time where my proposal is, or are we going to wait? From what I understand, you wanted to come back to talk about what the length recommendations were. I want to talk about what the administration's recommendation on this salary increase was an idea. Is this the time to talk about this, or do I have to wait until the 12th to talk about this? Well, Chair, if I may, I think my thought was that we would talk about all of the options on the 12th, but if you or anybody else wants to express an opinion today, there's already been some opinions expressed. I think that's okay, but I think we're going to be redoing the whole thing. Thank you. My idea was, and I mean, it's not on. I did not send it to you because that was not in the discussion of the length, and I thought everything we were going to bring up was what happened in the length. And right now, I really don't support overall that we should be giving the rest of the money back out. I think it should be going back into general funds after we just talked about the net profit. We talked about all the only thing that's saving this city right now is the expense that we're not spending any money, and that's because of the employees. The employees are doing a heck of a job keeping this budget balanced, and I want to reward them this way. There's two ways you can reward it by giving them this bonus, or you give the money back in to them so they don't have to make the big cuts again like they did the last two or three years. And we're getting down where we're cutting. There's no such thing as fat and muscle anymore. It's the bonus. And that's my big fear. If we are to go this way, giving employees raises, the recommendation that I would recommend we go the opposite way. We get people from $21,000 to $30,000 a $750 bonus. We get people from $31,000 to $40,000 a $625 bonus. We get the folks from $41,000 to $50,000 a $575 bonus. And then those from $50,000 to $55,000 a $550 bonus. And the reason I say that is you got to look at the 600 people. And I'm being Bernie Sanders here, guys. I know some of my colleagues are a big Bernie Sanders guy. I don't agree with everything, but I agree with what he's saying here. We should help the low income. And to me, this is how you do these kind of bonuses. Every bonus I've ever given when I worked, everybody got the same. I don't care if you made $300,000 or if you made $40,000 or $10,000. You got the same Christmas bonus and any kind of bonus. Or if you give a raise, everybody gets the same raise. We set up wrong mentions. I walk around every Friday. The mention that we sent last week, last spring, summer, was a bad mention. When I go around and see these 900 employees, I say, why are they more important than me? Why do they deserve more money? Why do some of them get $1,200, $1,300, $1,400 bonuses and I'm sitting here getting $500? I can't answer that. So this is where, to me, how to stop this bleeding is we turn it the opposite way. And if we don't go the opposite way, I'm going to be against all this. Going back to your point about the jail, the best time to do some kind of research right now, because we sat here last year, we're full of room, but before Thanksgiving when people couldn't work because they couldn't go home and see their parents, they couldn't go home and see their kids. And this is the time you want to bring a consultant in. When? From now to Christmas. Because after Christmas, it's going to be a different story because they all had to go out and borrow money. And they want that over time. And that, to me, I think we need to, the earlier we get this. Now, I understand you got some, you all have some issues. I think you still go on with the issues. But I still think this is the time we've got to get them in their ASAP like last year. And that's why I support this. But I will be, I'll wait to hear what everybody says. But please understand, the morale is very important how you give these bonuses. So just give them your heads up. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. A lot of the issues, thanks for the fund balance report. And I think a lot of the issues that I want to speak to have already been spoken about. I'm glad that we went ahead and moved forward and repaid the budget stabilization account. I agree with doing something for our employees. But I think that we actually have to look at what we're going to do going forward on an annual basis instead of kind of piecemealing bonus situations that we can't continue to do on a regular basis. So I think that's something that we can have a further discussion about. I appreciate the administration taking it as an initiative to move it forward at this time. And then the corrections. I hear what both Council Member Masadi and Maloney are saying. I think we as a council have asked for information and would like to hear that before we move forward. But I do understand that time is of the essence in regards to the situation out there. So I'm kind of up in the air on that one. And then council projects. I think we would all support getting some money to do some good things in our districts. But when we went through the budget, I think a lot of folks knew the situation that we were in and didn't submit any requests. So I would like to continue the conversation and have opportunity for the council members to kind of weigh in and make budget requests and we talk about it and decide how to move forward with that allocation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you for the recognition, Chair. I will echo what Council Member Brown just said. I know we've not had the motion yet. I know we anticipate it based on what the Vice Mayor said in his remarks. But given the email that was sent out, I think that it is an appropriate measure to have a committee of the whole where we can further discuss some of this. As Council Member Brown said, given the tight budget framework that we worked with back in June, May and June, several of us forewent projects in our districts that we would like to have the opportunity to discuss. And we worked very hard to work within that tight budget time frame. And now I think it would be nice, while I appreciate the Chair's recognition, to this discussion be had in a committee where we all can make our motions and speak our mind and not just handle it quickly today. Though I have to say the administration's framework here is a great start, and I appreciate that. I think that's a good working frame. But I would support what I anticipate would be a motion to put this in the November 12th CAL and further discuss it. And so thank you again for the recognition, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Belfarmer. So to follow up on those comments, thank you, sir. So the uncommitted amount after the successful motion would be $1,461,496. So in anticipation of this discussion, I would make a motion to move that into account 1105. So moved. Second. A motion and a second. Council Member Allengore seconded. Any conversation or discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. I mean, I appreciate what your recommendation is. I can't support this because it goes back to the jail. I think we need to take that $40,000 out as ASAP so we can get this going with the study, because I don't want to sit here in January, I mean, and look back before Thanksgiving and have this room full of people. When I made a promise last year that we were going to try to fix this, and it has not been working. And to me, it's time you bring somebody outside to bring into this thing because I don't want to. I told you all last week, there's no way I can sit up there. I would want a job, be one person looking over 96 people in the same unit by yourself. And I just think that maybe it's not the right way to do things, and that's why you may want to bring somebody outside, especially during these holidays when it's really going to be, when nobody's going to be wanting to work. So I can't support the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. I, too, have concerns with not moving forward. You know, November 12th, with all due respect, is two weeks from now, and if we can go ahead and start on this assessment as it relates to our community corrections sooner than later than waiting two more weeks and then possibly having to wait longer for proper, however it needs to be moved forward, I would think with 40,000 or 30,000 for the assessment that they could move forward without council approval. I don't know with 30,000, does it still have to be, I guess, could I ask a question? Does a project assessment for 30,000, will it have to go through council, or does it fall under the purview where the administration has the ability to move forward with that, if so given? I don't see Mr. Slayton in here. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head as far as our purchasing. I think your answer is twofold. 30,000 is the limit that we can do, but we need the authority for the financing for that 30,000. Sure. I understand that. Thank you. So having heard that, I see Council Member Mazzotti has signed up to speak, but I would like for us to not wait two weeks on this and to be able to go ahead and move forward because I do think we have heard the criticalness of our corrections, and so I would like to make a motion to amend Council Member Farmer's motion to take out the 40,000 to give to the administration to go ahead and start with the corrections assessment. So move. Second. Motion and a second. Any conversation on the motion, on the amendment to the motion? Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I was not going to address the issue specifically because I had hoped we would have time in the budget calendar to do that, but I have concerns about spending another $30,000 on a consultant for the jail, especially before Council has been able to get its own information. We had the folks from EKU do a comprehensive assessment three years ago, four? Four. Four, however many years ago, and it's not obvious to me at this point what an outside view at $30,000 is going to tell us more than we already know about what the real issues are. So I'm not going to support this motion, and I might support eventually a motion to take that money out of the fund balance if I hear more about it, but I don't want a short conversation, personally. I don't want a short conversation about this because I think we've seen this before, and somehow it has not made the difference for us. We've brought in outside experts, so thank you, Chair. Thank you. Anybody else have comments on the amendment to the motion? Seeing none, all in favor? All opposed? Motion fails. Yes, would you mind doing a Legistar vote for the record? And this is on the amendment to the original farmer's motion. Well, motion fails. Now I'd like to return to originally Council Member Bill Farmer's original motion. I'd like to also do a screen vote on that as well. Thank you. That motion passes, and I think we will look forward to an official call of the Committee of the Whole scheduled for November 12th on Tuesday at 10 a.m., in which case we can consider all the council member land. I just want to ask what the November 12th Committee of the Whole, are you intending on having it in the caucus room, or can we please have it in the council chambers? We have always planned on it being in the chambers so that it would be very clear and transparent for everybody who wants to participate. That's good. I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Chair. Just one additional comment, unless there's objection. In constructing the agenda for this Committee of the Whole, what I'm going to recommend is that we take the administration recommendations first, and that we then do what we've done in the past, which is take all of the other, well, I'm going to back up half a step, the recommendations that we made in the spring to ourselves about the fund balance in the fall, those next, and then anything else that council members want to recommend that we do a blind draw for the order of discussing those so that nobody feels like they're at the bottom of the list. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. We look forward to further discussion on fund balance at that time. Now Commissioner O'Mara. Just some housekeeping, if we could. If you would go back to the fund balance allocation, in the past we've had council endorse the assignments. We had $4 million recommended as the usual amount for health insurance reserve, which is the amount recommended by our consultants, and then the budget stabilization of $11.4 million. If we could have your endorsement for that, then we would be able to publish the CAFR. I so move. Thank you. Motion by Councilor William. I need a second, please. Second. Thank you. Second. Any conversation, discussion? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. Off of the information that was shared with us earlier, that the money that we spent year-to-date is less than what we budgeted. Is $4 million still appropriate to allocate towards the health insurance, or could we potentially reduce that amount? Well, we're seeing the ups and downs in our health insurance. What we're being warned is that we're subject to some very fantastic drugs that do some miracle healing, but are tremendously expensive. If someone should be diagnosed for those at $100,000 a injection, that lower spend may turn itself around. So, no, they do not recommend a decrease in that reserve. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you. Health insurance reserve is something I remember and we've done, and the budget stabilization reserve. Isn't there or wasn't there like a legal reserve of some sort in all of this? We've had that in the past. We're feeling better about it now, or what? Well, we haven't recommended it. You are a wordsmith beyond compare. So there's no recommendation there, and these are the only two you're asking for? That's correct. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Any other conversation or discussion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. I apologize for the oversight. Okay. Lastly, we'll move on to item number four, which is a conversation about tax increment financing and how we've used that as the city. And, Mr. Holbrook, I believe you're presenting. I am. Welcome. Thank you very much. So first, just as a review of tax increment financing, because it can be a slightly more sophisticated tool than some of the other ones that we use, we'll just go through a brief overview of our participation program with the state and how it works and then what our program looks like here. So first, tax increment financing is one of two programs that we participate, economic development programs, we participate in partnership with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The first of those is Kentucky Business Investment Program. And what that does is that is where we incentivize directly a company to create new jobs. And that would be by rebating payroll taxes directly to the business. And when we participate, we participate by providing roughly 44% of the payroll tax rate for those new jobs back to the company for a period of 10 years. For tax increment financing, this is a program that incentivizes capital development. So it would be something like we've seen with Summit, with City Center, with the Lexington Center Project. And LFUCG has participated by pledging 80% of net new payroll and property taxes over a period of 20 to 30 years. So it's a higher rate of rebate for the new payroll and property taxes and also for a longer period of time. As far as how TIF works, the basic format is that you need to be able to generate net new revenue. For us, that's net new to Fayette County. And whenever we partnership with the Commonwealth, that's net new to the state. So what we do is we look at an area, we baseline the amount of taxes that are paid in that area at a point in time. And then whenever the investment happens and that minimum threshold is met, then the developer can rebate property and payroll taxes from us. And then if the state's participating fully, property payroll and sales tax. We have never done a local-only TIF. There are some communities that have, but we've had a goal from the beginning of being able to leverage dollars from outside the state. And so we've been pretty firm in our endorsement of doing the partnership programs. And the types of reimbursements that are typically done for these projects are things that qualify under public infrastructure. Those could be things like sanitary sewer, roads, street lights, some sort of public space, or curbs and sidewalks. And you'll see a mix of each of those in any individual development. Currently, we have nine TIF projects in Lexington. The bottom two, the Lexington Convention Center and Fountains of Palomar, are going to be on the agenda for the state on Thursday. And just as a matter of comparison, we have the second most number of TIFs in the state compared to Louisville. Louisville has 11, and we have nine. One of the things that we've encountered as the TIF program has gone forward is the TIF law is written such that for the state to really participate at a full level, then the new jobs need to be net new to the state of Kentucky. And for a community like Lexington, which is in the middle of the state, this is extremely challenging for us to show as time goes on. And if we were located in northern Kentucky, Louisville, Owensboro, Bowling Green, anywhere near the border, it would be a lot easier for us to show that we were having people come across from Indiana or Ohio or Tennessee to spend money in Kentucky. But because of where we are, we're geographically challenged. And this is a conversation we've been having with the state for a while. Beginning with the Midland Avenue TIF project, the representatives from the state informed us that we were more or less TIFed out. And that meant for them that they wouldn't be able to participate at the same level that they had in the past. And more than likely, that would result in us only seeing property tax participation in some of our later projects going forward. That's not to say there might not be exceptions. It just probably wouldn't be the types of developments that we've seen so far. As we've seen the developments that we have, the state has said that our net new is declining. And so it would need to be something that's markedly different from what we've seen to date. And this graph shows, and this is in chronological order from when they were approved, the level of state participation as a percentage of the project. So you can see with the city center TIF, that started off at above 10%, climbing a little bit with Red Mile. The ones that are in green were anticipated to be property tax only. So the 21C in Turfland, that's property tax only at the state. We really capped out at Summit at a little over 15% of the project being from state funds. And then right about the time the state started to have a conversation with us that their participation would be declining between Summit and Midland, that's where you see a real drop in participation from them. So Midland was less than 6%. Cold Stream was less than 4%. It looks like it shot up with Lexington Center, but one of the caveats there is in any given year, they're only rebating half of what they would previously. So typically the state would rebate 80% of their net new, payroll, sales, and property, but for that one it's going to be 40%. So even though it has a larger percentage of the project tax increment financed, it's actually a slower rebate period. And then Fountains is the most recent one that we've done, and based on the type of development, the state said that that wouldn't qualify for some of the expanded programs, that that would be property tax only, and that that's a lot of what we would be able to expect in the future. Here's a map of all the TIF projects we have. A lot of them are downtown going from Midland and then up to Lexington Center. We've got Red Mile and then Turfland going out Richmond Road, and then you've got some of the other ones like Summit and Fountains at Palomar, which are a little further out in town. As far as to date, and this is a chart that looks at from 2015 to present, if you take out Summit, a majority of the TIF increment payments have been from LFUCG to the developers. Some of that is related to timing differences, but this is certainly not something that we anticipated, having essentially a majority of the money come from us to be able to support these developments. One of the goals of the TIF program initially was to leverage money from outside of Lexington, particularly through the state program, to be able to support capital development here, and that's something that we've really seen dry up as the program has moved forward. We're anticipating some of these timing differences will get worked out and we'll start to see some increment payments come in from the state in larger amounts, but as of right now, with the exception of the Summit, LFUCG has provided a majority of the funds for the programs. All right, now I'll take any questions. Thank you very much for your presentation. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the presentation. You're welcome. Very helpful. On Centerpoint and Midland, I can understand why the state may not have put any money in yet because those are not operative, but why have we already put in funds when they're not yielding anything? Based on the way the agreements are set up, there's a period of time for when we get the information that we have to process it and put the increment out, and we have public infrastructure to rebate to tie it to, and so we're able to go ahead and rebate that portion even if the state hasn't come. They have a timeline that is 90 days from when they finalize their revenue assessment, and that has taken, in some cases, much longer than three or four months to finalize those numbers and to get the payments from the state to us and then out to the developers. Okay, so is it reasonable to say that on Centerpoint, now that they are actually generating revenue and have payroll and so on, that the state's portion will start to be reflected? We've submitted for the first tranche from the state for this calendar year and are anticipating that sometime in the next few months, but we haven't gotten confirmation that we'll be receiving it yet. Okay, and then on the Midland project, since they're not operative, I guess my understanding was that as they generated employment and property tax, that that would be abated, but what are we abating here? So those are the construction wages and property taxes. Oh, really? Midland activated prior to when the project was complete, which up until the Midland TIF that they were able to do, and so that money is being accrued and held by us. It hasn't been paid out from Midland yet. I see. But once they reach their threshold of $20 million expended, then we'll provide that as a rebate to the developer. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. On page 47, where it talks about Lexington being TIFed out, that category, do you know if any other cities or, like, I guess I would just say, do you know if Louisville is dealing with any kind of the same category, being put in the same category? We haven't had conversations with them about other communities, other than the fact that because of our geographic location, it's very challenging to generate net new in the center of the state, whereas Louisville can say they're drawing people from Indiana or even Ohio potentially to come to some of the developments that they may have. Okay. All right. So when you say that, so I guess anything else that could be possibly, I guess the fountains is the last thing, as you stated, the last project that is being brought to us. So pretty much that's it for us? I mean, it relates to job creation? Should there be something that's markedly different from what we've seen so far, then we may be able to recapture some of the larger state revenue sources, like payroll and sales tax. But otherwise their participation is going to look like property tax rebate, which is not a substantial amount as a percentage of the project. And we've continued to participate at the 80% of payroll and 80% of property. So our participation as a percentage of the project has remained high and stable, even though the state's has declined. The TIF project out at Cold Stream, that, from the diagram here, it looks like there are, is there two buildings or three buildings, I guess I see. So there's a lot more space out there to develop that could create jobs? Yes, there is. Okay. So within the TIF project, that is? Yes. And they have some certain buildings that are carved out that were already built and developed. But there's still opportunity out there. Okay. I think that seems like it's our largest potential, let's say. All right. Well, thank you for this information. Thanks. Thanks, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to follow up on the statement that you're saying about it being difficult for Lexington to bring in new employees. It's not necessarily difficult for Lexington to bring in new employees to Fayette County, but it is for them to be in Fayette County and also new to the state. And that's what TIFs are based on? From the state participation, it's based on net new employees and job growth to the state of Kentucky. Okay. I'm curious, how are other cities proving that their employees are new? Because you mentioned two other cities. I mean, someone could cross over the river to a new job, but they're still – they may have been previously employed someplace in Louisville or the same in Elizabethtown. Okay. I see I've garnered up something else. Actually, Wes is right. I just want to say it in a different way. When you're talking about employees, the state looks at employees as a revenue stream through the payroll taxes and those kind of generators. So it is really based on a revenue generation that would not be here otherwise. So, you know, Summit is an example. They viewed many of those retail outlets as sources of revenue that we would not have had had it not been in Lexington. This was a market that those probably would have not been into with maybe the exception of Louisville. So those were new. And if it's not – it can't be one just moving from, let's say, Versailles to Lexington or even Pikeville to Lexington, that would not count. The other issue becomes if you're in a TIF zone, then the traditional incentives that we would allocate toward a new business have already been dedicated to the development itself and therefore can't go to the companies as an incentive to the company itself. I might need a private tutorial to follow up with that, but okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Masati. Mr. Adkins, I have a follow-up question on something you just said. You said these have to be new jobs. New revenue to the state. New revenue. Okay. So in reference to the Summit, Whole Foods came from Lexington Green. Anthropology came from Lexington Green. How does that figure in the equation? The additional revenue would be what's calculated into the base. I see. So it's not brand-new jobs. It's brand-new. Okay. It's brand-new. No. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anybody else signed up for questions, so I think I'll just comment at the end. It sounds like based on prior conversations that we should leave this in committee and maybe come back in four to six months after we see how the next administration chooses to pursue TIF funding as it relates to us. Would that be a good idea? Okay. Then if that pleases the committee, to see how that might change moving forward. Okay. Thank you very much for your presentations. Would anybody like to review anything on the referral packet for any changes at this time? I have one gentleman signed up for public comment. So, Mr. Wilson, if you'd like to join us at the podium, you may have three minutes to address the council on budget items. My name is David Wilson. I live at 2444 Calendula Road, Lexington, Kentucky. My concerns are what are your audit procedures here at this facility here? It appears that someone could actually walk off with some money, which has happened in quite a few counties around here at this time. And the reason I come is because I received a bill. I believe it was back in July for about approximately 500 and some dollars. Let me see. The actual amount was $640 of my bill. And I've been living in my house for 10 years. I have automatic pay. So it could not have been delinquent. I did sell a house at Radcliffe in August. And the bill, when I called down, they said, well, we have to run it through your account because we can't run it through the old account. The old account was delinquent for two years. How could you have a bill delinquent for two years? Doesn't make sense to me. Of $600. If that be the case, why don't you just write it off? So talking to them, and I called down to the city three or four times, I did talk to Rachel Cole, unable to talk to Rusty Cook, Bill Omar. They were in the meeting. It was here. They were there. Talked to two other people working under them. And I sit out there in the hallway and stuff like that. I said, can I see the mayor? No, you can't see the mayor. I called for an appointment. Called for an appointment over telephone. She's busy. I can't make an appointment with her. Now, back in the 60s or 70s, I talked to Judge Stevens with no problem at all. Of course, I know AI is very prominent now, so it's very difficult, running into it every day and actually getting tired of it. But the question is, how can you apply money to one account that's not delinquent and say you can't go back and pick up the other account that is? And on top of that, they finally sent me a bill here, one that's like this, and they have the account number, 524-46301, for an apartment that I sold on Radcliffe. And then they sent a bill out here, and they're going to apply it to account number 152446401. Now, which one is correct? Now, I retired as a financial analyst, but back when we was coming, it was just called a pencil pusher. That's all it was. But at least we knew you had to balance the accounts. So I'm just wondering what kind of financial situation you have down here. And why should I pay this bill? Also, they attacked a, which may be correct, a removal of the water meter. This is all on the water bill. And they applied two of them to it as well. Also, a couple of estimated, only 64 cents. If you're going to close out a bill, why would you estimate something? It should be accurate. Well, thank you very much for coming and presenting your issue during this time. And there are lots of people in the room that I think we could figure out a way to help you, okay? Okay. Well, what should I do? Should I pay the bill? I was requested to pay it in the lobby out there. If I paid it in the lobby, how would I know the man wouldn't just stick it in his pocket and walk off, have delinquent bill, two years old, another two years come back and request me to pay the bill again? I can't answer that question because I'm not sure who you talked to. But I do promise you that when we finish this meeting, we'll see what we can do to fix it. You'll get back with me? Someone will? Yeah. Just sit right here. Just give me a second. Who? Well, I'm not going to stay here. I have another commitment. No, sir. I just meant they're right there. If you'll let us adjourn, I'm happy to come down and help you. Oh, okay. All right. If you'll just wait one second. That's fine with me. Thank you, sir, very much for coming. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. So adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.