# Budget Committee of the Whole - Video Teleconference - April 27, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 27, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5343 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5343?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-04-27 - **Last revised**: April 27, 2021 - **Length**: 18,080 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council held a virtual meeting on April 27, 2021, at 1:00 PM to review financial matters and budget planning for the upcoming fiscal year. The meeting focused entirely on informational presentations and discussions related to the city's financial status and budget preparations for FY2022. The council addressed three agenda items during the session, all of which were informational in nature. The meeting began with a Quarterly Financial Update, followed by an overview of the FY2022 Mayor's Proposed Budget, and concluded with a discussion of FY2022 Expenditure and Revenue Options. These presentations provided council members with essential financial data and budget framework details as they prepared for upcoming budget deliberations. No formal votes were taken during this meeting, as the session was designed to provide information and facilitate discussion rather than make binding decisions. Additionally, no public comments were heard during the proceedings. The meeting served as a working session for council members to receive updates on the city's current financial position and gain insight into the mayor's budget proposal for the next fiscal year, setting the foundation for future budget-related decisions and deliberations. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included several significant financial updates and actions related to the district's fiscal position for both the current and upcoming fiscal years. **Current Year Financial Performance** Staff reported that the FY21 nine-month actuals showed a surplus of $19,793,538, indicating the district's strong financial performance through three quarters of the fiscal year. **FY22 Budget Challenges** The district faces a proposed budget shortfall of $21,947,710 for FY22, representing a significant financial challenge that will require strategic planning and resource allocation decisions. **Budget Savings Allocation** The board took action to address part of the upcoming budget shortfall through pre-funding measures. They approved the appropriation of $7,935,497 using FY21 budget savings to help offset the projected FY22 deficit. This pre-funding strategy allows the district to leverage current year surplus funds to reduce the impact of next year's budget gap. The financial actions demonstrate the district's proactive approach to budget management, utilizing current year savings to partially address known future shortfalls while maintaining fiscal responsibility. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of contention regarding the city's financial planning and use of federal relief funds. **Use of Budget Stabilization and ARPA Funds** A heated discussion emerged among council members concerning the proposed use of budget stabilization funds and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for recurring municipal expenses. The disagreement centered on the financial sustainability of using these one-time funding sources to cover ongoing operational costs. Council members who opposed the proposal raised concerns about creating future budget shortfalls once these temporary funding sources are exhausted. They argued that using stabilization funds and ARPA money for recurring expenses would create an unsustainable financial situation, potentially leaving the city in a worse fiscal position when the federal relief funds are no longer available. The nature of the discussion was characterized as heated, indicating strong disagreements among council members about the appropriate use of these funds. However, the specific council members involved in the debate and their individual positions were not detailed in the available meeting materials. The outcome of this contentious discussion was not specified in the meeting documentation, leaving unclear whether the council reached a resolution on the use of these funds or if the matter was tabled for future consideration. This disagreement highlights the ongoing challenges municipalities face in managing federal relief funds while maintaining long-term fiscal responsibility, particularly the tension between addressing immediate needs and ensuring sustainable budget practices for the future. ## Quarterly Financial Update [timestamp: 00:00] Wes Holbrook and Melissa presented the quarterly financial update for the first nine months of fiscal year 2021, reporting a surplus of $19.8 million. The presentation reviewed the organization's financial performance through the reporting period, providing an overview of revenue and expenditure patterns that contributed to the positive financial position. The speakers outlined key financial metrics and budget performance indicators for the nine-month period. **Key Financial Highlights:** • Surplus of $19.8 million reported for the first nine months of FY21 • Financial performance exceeded expectations for the reporting period The update served as an informational presentation to keep stakeholders informed of the current financial status. No specific concerns were raised during the discussion, and no action items were identified as this was a routine quarterly reporting session. The financial update concluded with the surplus figure representing the organization's strong fiscal position through the first three quarters of the fiscal year. ## FY2022 Mayor's Proposed Budget Overview [timestamp: 01:00:00] Commissioner Hensley presented an overview of the Mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2022, highlighting significant financial challenges facing the municipality. The presentation revealed a substantial budget shortfall of $21.9 million that the city must address in the upcoming fiscal year. To bridge this funding gap, the administration outlined a two-pronged approach utilizing available resources. The proposal includes drawing from pre-funding mechanisms that had been established in previous budget cycles, as well as incorporating funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the federal COVID-19 relief package that provided direct assistance to local governments. The budget overview served as an informational presentation to familiarize commissioners with the financial landscape and proposed solutions for FY2022. Commissioner Hensley's presentation provided the foundational understanding of the city's fiscal position as officials prepare for more detailed budget discussions and deliberations in subsequent meetings. This agenda item was purely informational, with no formal action taken during the meeting. The presentation established the framework for future budget-related decisions and gave commissioners the necessary context to evaluate specific budget proposals and amendments that would be considered in later sessions. ## Discussion of FY2022 Expenditure and Revenue Options [timestamp: 02:00:00] The council engaged in a discussion regarding various expenditure and revenue options for the upcoming FY2022 budget. This agenda item III served as an informational session to explore different financial strategies and funding mechanisms available to the municipality. Key participants in the discussion included Council Member Moloney and Council Member Fred Brown, who contributed to the deliberations on the fiscal options under consideration. The discussion covered several important financial topics, including: • Prefunding strategies for the upcoming fiscal year • Potential utilization of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds • Various revenue generation options available to the council • Expenditure priorities and allocation considerations The conversation focused on examining how these different funding sources and spending approaches could be integrated into the FY2022 budget planning process. Council members explored the implications of using federal ARPA funds and discussed the benefits and considerations associated with prefunding certain municipal obligations. This agenda item was designated as informational, meaning no formal votes or binding decisions were made during this discussion. Instead, the session provided council members with an opportunity to review and debate the various fiscal options that would inform future budget deliberations and decision-making processes. The discussion served as a foundation for ongoing budget planning efforts, allowing council members to better understand the range of financial tools and strategies available as they work toward finalizing the FY2022 municipal budget. --- ## Full transcript I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I'm just gonna go, I Thank you. Thank you and good afternoon. Welcome to the special committee of the whole meeting regarding the budget. It's April 27, 2021 and before we do anything else I need to read the special COVID statement. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and state of emergency, this meeting is being held via live video teleconference pursuant to 2020 Senate Bill 150 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for the meeting. So once again welcome to everybody. The first item on our agenda is the quarterly financial update. Welcome Commissioner. Welcome and hello, council members. We have quite a lot for you all this afternoon. We're going to get started with our third quarter financial update, and our team will be presenting that here in just a moment, and we'll follow up with the budget presentation. And can everyone see the presentation? Yes. Good afternoon, council members. I'm Ashley Lawrence Simpson, the senior administrative officer for the finance department. And today we're bringing you the third quarter financial update, which covers the months of July through March in fiscal year 2021. one. We've included our actuals for the year in the table on the left. Through nine months, you'll see that our actual revenues have exceeded our actual expenditures by about $20 million. There are a couple things we want to note here. This shows only a point in time and does not represent where we'll be at the end of the year. If you look at the graph on the right, you'll see that in some months we have higher revenues, but in some months we have higher expenses. We've completed nine months of our year, but we know from our budget that for two of the three months in our fourth quarter, we have high expenses that will draw down this point in time actual. Nevertheless, we are in a much better position at the end of quarter three than we thought we would be in as we were putting this budget together last March when we were kind of in the throes of COVID. We are encouraged by what we continue to see here. I'm going to turn it over to Revenue Director Wes Holbrook to discuss our top four revenues and how we've looked through nine months. good afternoon council members beginning with our year-to-date actual compared with budget with the top four we can see as we as we get further on in the year and we see our budget from when we were starting to do our estimates during the pandemic we underestimated where we would be at this point in time pretty dramatically so and that's especially evident in our top two With employee withholdings, we just finished our best employee withholdings quarter that we've ever had. So we typically see the third quarter of the year be very strong, and this one has been stronger than any we've ever seen. And net profits, with that number, the $6.5 million variance, we saw the shifting of the tax deadline bring some of the late collections, the extended collections into this fiscal year, whereas normally they might be in the prior fiscal year. So we've seen that continue to be strong. And then in insurance, whenever we originally estimated the budget, we had a lot of refunds, rebates that were occurring with some of our insurance companies. And those seem to dissipate in the first quarter of the year. And so we've seen our insurance variance climb and grow over what our budget projection was. with the last of our top four of the franchise fees. We've seen that go under budget and be behind about that $500,000 mark most of the year. And I would anticipate that trend to continue as we go through the rest of the fiscal year, unless we start to see some extremes, whether that's a cold snap or if we start to see some hot weather early. Just one thing I wanted to note before we look at our year-over-year projection, similar to what we saw with employee withholdings, where we had our best quarter on record. We have started to get our filings for most of our businesses from April 15th in net profits, and we've been processing those. We still have our individual filers. They're not going to be due totally until May 17th. But in the last week, we have had our second best collections week in net profits of the last decade. So we did about six and a half million dollars of net profits processing just last week, which is, again, that's the second best week we've had all decade. So we know a lot of businesses did suffer during the pandemic, but it appears that those that did do well did very well. And we're seeing the product of that through our net profits pilots. Looking year over year, through the first nine months, we had a pretty good fiscal year 2020 up until March. And then April was where things really started to fall off. Comparing year over year, because of our strong third quarter in FY21, that's pulled us ahead of where we were in fiscal year 20 in payroll withholdings. Net profits, you still see the impact of having some of those filings move into this fiscal year. We'll see that grow as we have very strong collections compared with prior year in April. and then insurance roughly about where we were last year. And if you adjust for what some of the rebates and refunds were, we were performing pretty well, especially these last six months. And again, with franchise fees, that's within about 2%. So that's a pretty good run rate compared with prior year. And unless we see some extremes, we'll anticipate seeing that continue. But just comparing year over year, we're doing, compared with prior year through the first nine months, we're doing about 2.5% better. And considering that we had nine pretty good months of fiscal year 2020, compared with really only the last six months of fiscal year 2021 being positive, that's some really good news for us to look at as we go into the end of the fiscal year and continue our budget conversation. Just looking at our budget, and you can see where some of this variance starts to occur on the payroll side. We've had very few months, especially since the first quarter, where we haven't exceeded our payroll budget by a decent amount. And so as we see that continue, and as we see the lower budget in the last quarter, we're probably going to see that variance continue to rise. and if collections continue to be strong, especially compared with the pretty rough fourth quarter and fiscal year 2020, we'll see that year-over-year variance rise as well. With net profits, one of the challenges with this graph, and you can see with this, our big month is April, where we see a lot of those filings come in. We did have to make a large adjustment because of the moving of the tax deadline. And so what we're seeing on this graph doesn't really reflect how we've seen collections come in because we've had such a large adjustment come through. But we are seeing money come in very strongly in April. It looks like that's probably going to continue as we go into May and get those individual filings. And we'll continue to monitor this as we go into the rest of this year. unless anybody has any questions I'll turn it over to Melissa for the rest of the revenues and expenses let's see nobody signed up so please proceed good afternoon Wes has already gone through the top four of our revenue so I'd like to focus on couple of our other revenue streams. Sorry about that. So the presenter view and I was seeing this live but you all weren't seeing it so I apologize for that. On our services category you can see we're at a negative about $800,000 for the first nine months. This is primarily due to a lower number of inmates at our detention center so we're housing less inmates, giving less revenue from the state and the federal government for the inmates that we would have typically housed. On the flip side, you'll see an upcoming slide that we are also experiencing savings by having less inmates. So that's offset, the drop in revenues offset by the drop in expenses there. We're also seeing lower revenues in our parks and recreation. As you all know, we haven't been able to have many of our camps and other activities that parks puts on. As parks begin to open back up and activities resume, we can see a little bit of that movement, but those are the two main categories there for the services that are drawing that negative variance for us. In addition, the investment income, interest rates are low. We are not receiving the higher interest rates that we had been seeing there, so it's good for the consumer if you're going to refinance, but it's also a lower in revenue for us currently. On the expense side, as you all are aware, we've had a number of vacancies and we are seeing savings based on the number of vacancies that we have in addition to the benefits, taxes associated with those vacancies. The budget also was higher because we had some salaries that were charged to the first coronavirus relief fund stimulus, and so we were able to free up some of our general fund budget based on that. In addition, we're seeing operating savings of $11.5 million for the first five months of the nine months of the fiscal year. These savings are in our professional services categories. As I mentioned earlier, the savings at the jail based on not housing the inmates, we're saving on our food contract, our medical contract, and various other operating expenses due to the lower number of inmates out there. In addition, we've got savings in our utilities. We've got savings in just operating supplies, repairs and maintenance. We're seeing operating savings throughout the government, and you'll see a slide in just a couple slides. you'll see just how impactful those operating savings are. The insurance expense currently is showing up as a negative variance. This is something that was budgeted to happen in June. This has already been booked. So this budget will catch up and that negative variance will go away by the end of the fiscal year there. As you all are aware, we refinanced some of our bonds and have received savings based on refinancing those bonds. So that is a true positive variance there in our debt service category. We've got the partner agencies and capital with a little bit of savings there. But overall, if you look at the bottom line, we have $19.7 million more in revenue than we have spent so far for the first nine months of the fiscal year. Looking at the personnel budget and the actuals in a little more detail, you'll see our personnel budget fluctuates. That's the blue line there. We've got two months every fiscal year that have three pay periods. This year it happens to be October and April. In addition, in January, you'll see the spike there. We have our sick checks, so for people that are getting paid for their sick leave. And then we also have an increased number of public safety retirements that we have with payouts that happen in January. week. So you can see only three months where we over budget on our personnel savings throughout the year. The operating one, this one you can see, we have not met our operating budget any month of this fiscal year for the first nine months. Operating budget is higher in June because of getting year-end contracts and things done, purchases made. But as you can see, we're well below the line most of the months for the fiscal year to date. This is our revenue, all of our revenues compared to prior year. If you look at the bottom there, we've collected $1.7 million more for this nine months than we did the same time period last fiscal year. So we were within 1% of where we were at this time last year. Here is our expense compared to last year, And you'll note the big drop in personnel. That is primarily due to those salaries that I mentioned earlier being charged to the coronavirus relief funds. And so we were able to pull those out of our general fund. So we experienced those savings there. Operating savings, you'll see we have spent less in our operating year to date. overall we have spent like I said 19.7 million dollars more than we brought in but we're still spending less than prior year in several of our categories so I'll turn it back over to Ashley earlier we discussed how our budget includes some months with high revenues and some with high expenses This chart shows our adopted budget for fiscal year 21. We're nine months in, but you'll notice that as we look forward to April, May, and June, both April and June are expected to be those large expense months we talked about. You'll also see the blue spike in May. Both April and May are the months where we have large collections in our net profits. As Director Holbrook pointed out, we've had strong collections in net profits so far. We'll continue to watch for any swings during this last quarter that might affect our overall collections for the year. we've also brought back our piggy bank slide the fiscal year 21 budget was created at the onset of covid and called for the use of 36 million dollars in one-time funds and that was across five different sources looking ahead we continue to project that we will not need to make the loan from the parks fund or the tenant relocation fund and that we'll not need to make those draws from economic contingency or budget stabilization we have made the four million dollar transfer from our insurance fund. That's one of the factors that's creating that variance that Melissa talked about. About $3 million of that transfer was to the general fund. This transfer was recommended by our actuaries, and we needed to make it to keep our fund balance at the recommended levels. This overall decrease in projected use of one-time funds is the result of both higher than budgeted revenue collections, as well as our expense savings throughout the year. And because we've had some significant expense savings in fiscal year 21, There is some pre-funding included in the mayor's proposed budget plan. We have a total of about $7.9 million in items that are proposed. This includes some items that will be purchased, as well as some fund transfers. These items are all listed out on the right-hand side of the screen. We'll be putting forward three separate budget amendments for pre-funding. Budget Amendment 1 is to complete the Rusell's Road Project, and that's already been approved by council. Budget Amendment 2 includes some purchasable items, as well as the ESR program. The reason that we've included the ESR program here, there's a few reasons. If we pre-fund this program, that will allow our staff to go ahead and begin moving forward with contracts with our agencies and our partners, but also it will allow us to release these funds to our partners more quickly, which we see as essential right now. The first reading on Budget Amendment 2 was last week, and the second reading is scheduled for May 6. We have one more amendment we'll be bringing forward, Budget Amendment 3. This will be the last to come through and will be brought before council once we have actual savings to fund that $2.7 million in transfers there. We anticipate that will be in May. We want to be careful with these amendments and ensure that as we're moving this money around, we're not creating current year budget issues for any of our departments. By doing these transfers in three different steps, we feel that we've been able to do that. And we'll talk a little more about the pre-funding and the budget overview presentation. And with that, it concludes our third quarter update. Are there any questions before we move into the budget overview? Thank you. Now I see a hand. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I actually had a question on the portion of the presentation that Wes was going through in regards to the net profits. And Wes, my question is, the variance that we're seeing in regards to the net profits, you had mentioned the extension of the deadline. Is that the only reason that we're seeing it or is some of that actual growth that's going to continue? So we're seeing a couple of things. We saw some of the prior year net profits get pushed into this year because people didn't file on July 15th. They filed an extension and paid after our period. But compared with a normal year, I think there is at least a small amount of real growth through March. We're still processing everything we've seen. We've had come in since April 15th. We still have our individual filers that have until May 17th to file. and we need to really wait to that point to get to the end of April to get to that next filing deadline to see how much of that's real growth versus just some carryover for prior years. But right now we can say we've seen a little bit of growth compared with what our normal years collections might be. Okay, okay. I appreciate that. You know, it's a pretty big number at the variance and I think just adding some context to it is important. So thanks for that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. and I see no other hands raised so we can proceed to the next item on the agenda which is the overview of the mayor's proposed budget and I'll welcome the commissioner back Sorry, I'm not afraid of getting us ready to go. All right, can you all see the slides? I don't think it's... No. No? We'll keep working on that. Sorry. It's okay. that looks better we're getting there thank you how about now yes ma'am all right uh welcome and thank you all for allowing me to present today um today we are going to go over the items that comprise the mayor's proposed budget taking into account the needs of our citizens the resources available to us and the timelines if applicable for the use of those resources. The word the mayor has used to describe this budget is bold and I agree with her. This budget is bold. I would like to take a moment to take the opportunity to thank everyone that has been involved and worked tirelessly to produce this budget as well as the council who are now getting ready to take the opportunity to evaluate it and make their recommendations. So without further ado, let's begin. So when we set about this task, the mayor had some guiding principles for which she was very clear that our budget was to come from. One of those was we were not having a tax increase. We were to maintain public safety. We were to increase social services and affordable housing from the pandemic levels. We wanted to sustain economic development momentum, preserve and enhance quality of life in our neighborhoods, our parks, and recreation infrastructure, our recreational services and programming, invest in paving and traffic and pedestrian infrastructure, limit the use of non-recurring funds, and not have any employee layoffs. So the first step in determining what kind of budget we would be able to build was to identify the resources that we had available to us, and that starts with our revenues. In order to look forward, we want to see how we were doing in FY21. So fortunately, as you've just heard my colleagues present, we're doing much better in 21 than we anticipated. And so with our stronger revenues and our lower expenditures, we have some savings that are available that can help us make decisions to pre-fund some of the items that would have been in next year's budget. Month over month, we've been showing that our revenues are rebounding stronger and faster than we anticipated, and we've continued to see the progress in our payroll withholding as well as our net profits collections. That has contributed to that $8 million that you all just heard about being out of the 21 revenue exceeding expenditure. Excuse me. Sorry, I got caught up there for a second. As far as next year, as far as looking towards FY22, we've had a lot of conversations with our colleagues in Louisville and at the state and across the country. We're seeing similar things to what we're seeing here. In addition, we've engaged Mike Clark from UK to help us validate the internal evidence that our growth is and our recovery is much better than we've anticipated. So we've been able to project a more aggressive revenue projection for next year. In addition to that, one thing I'd like to note that during the course of the pandemic, we were able to keep our bond rating intact. That is really a testament to the amount of work and effort that went into planning for last year, as well as the financial controls that the administration and council have been able to maintain through the course of this year. so overall what are we looking at we're looking at regular or traditional earned revenues of 376 million dollars we are looking at expenditures of 398 million dollars so that leaves us with a deficit of about 22 million dollars for this budget just to go through real quick what breaks down that 30 376 million dollars if you'll look at the payroll withholdings, in FY20, we actually ended at $205 million. We had projected for this year to be at $185 million. We've revised that estimate up to $206 million, and that helps us project next year at $210. Our net profits in 2020 were $37 million. We're seeing them come in stronger this year, so our revised estimate for this year is $41 million. And with a little bit of growth that we expect next year. We're projecting 43 million there. Insurance shows a little bit of an increase. Franchise fees, not a whole lot. But the other item that I want to talk about is our other revenues. In 2020, we were at 62 million dollars in other revenues. We actually are projecting that down for 21. That includes the parks activities, the corrections items, the things that we've talked about, those are coming back slowly, but not as strongly as some of the other factors. So we have included a proposed revenue estimate of $61 million for those other items next year. That is where our $376 million traditional revenue came from. So for the $22 million gap that we have to fill, how have we filled it? with what we just discussed, our pre-funding from this year is roughly $8 million. Our earned revenue, our traditional revenues is $376 million. And then we have applied $3.9 million of budget stabilization. And if you will recall, that was intended for the purposes of being able to help with the pension increases. That is exactly what we have used it for this year. So our pension increased budget this year is just over $3.9 million, and that is what we have requested out of budget stabilization to balance. The last piece that is balancing in this budget is the use of the American Rescue Plan Act dollars. We are anticipating that $120 million will be received roughly, and about 10 of that was used to balance this budget. I would like to note that there is no use of economic contingency fund in the balancing of this budget currently. I also had a conversation with Vice Mayor Kay this morning, and he is going to be bringing forth an amendment to the resolution that removes the $6.4 million from the economic contingency fund and moves it to budget stabilization. So those balances that are noted right there will adjust a little bit if approved by the council. So let's just talk about expenses for a moment. The mayor's proposed budget includes expenses of $398 million. That's a lot of money. That's a lot more than we've had in the past. And so I just want to go through how we funded particular pieces of that and hopes to give a little more clarity to what makes up that $398 million. As Ashley just discussed, we have $8 million worth of pre-funded items in this budget. The first item came through Amendment 1, Council has already approved. That was work to complete the Versailles Road project. The second budget amendment has gone through first reading. We'll have second reading in May. That is mostly comprised of purchased items as well as our ESR transfer. That makes up a vast majority of that first pre-funding budget amendment. We're really excited about the opportunity to get that process going and get those payments out to partners as soon as we can in the new fiscal year. The third budget amendment that we are talking about pre-funding is for our transfers. So that would comprise our streetlight transfer, our energy improvement fund transfer, job funds, balancing of the public facilities corp. And basically what those items are cash outlays that we need every year to try and balance those funds. And so we have projected our savings through the year in order to be able to pre-fund these items. So as we've discussed, the amendment won't come through until we've realized those savings. The majority of those savings are in our personnel, and we know that we will realize them through May and June. And so that is why we've chosen to break that up. The second part of the expenses that was paid for with a budget stabilizing item is the use of budget stabilization fund for the pension. We discussed that just briefly a moment ago. That's roughly $4 million in balancing in this budget. And now we're going to talk about the use of the American Rescue Plan Act funding. As we discussed earlier, we are anticipating around $120 million. It is estimated that the first half of it will be received before the end of this fiscal year. It is also estimated that the second half will be received before the end of next fiscal year. So we'll see that in two large pieces. and so when we were talking about um how to balance this budget the use of the rescue funds came up based on the guidance that we have i distributed a um a presentation from the league of cities last week that has all of the guidance that we've given to this point which is somewhat broad and so we looked at our expenses and the things that we were hoping to do for the city this year and looked very specifically at what might be eligible. So our current guidance allows for tourism-related projects, assistance to non-profits, and expenses relating to the public health emergency. One of the things about this funding in particular that is really very important is the deadline by which it has to be spent. That is December 31st of 2024. So we have proposed within this category items that are timely, things that we can get done in the period of time that we have this funding, as well as things with the current guidance that we believe will be eligible. And so what's in here are our parks projects. We have proposed parks projects all around the city. Each district is represented in those parks projects and the current activities at parks has been increasing since the beginning of the coronavirus. We know that there's not a lot of places that people can go and things that they can do and so they have flocked to our parks and so investing in those is really important in this budget. It includes items such as irrigation, parking lot and building repair, replacement of playground equipment, and repair and replacement of basketball courts. One of the second categories that is eligible under the use of these funds is payments to partnerships or nonprofits. So that specifically for us addresses the contributions to the Lyric, the LexArts Explorium, funding for our economic development and workforce grants, funding for our mental health support and to support our relatively new recovery supportive living assistance program. So those fall within that category. In addition, some of those overlap another category, which would be addressing the public health emergency. And so in that category are increased funding for affordable housing, funding for the Office of Homelessness Prevention and Intervention, the new code enforcement program, the emergency financial assistance through social services, and a reserve for PPE across government, because that has not been typically budgeted anywhere else. So currently, those are the items that's just over $10 million in the use of the rescue plan, and that is the reason that we selected those items and why they're there. in talking about some of our other expenses one of the things that we continue to hear over and over during the budget process was the need for additional staffing so this budget includes 30 positions 11 of which were previously on the frozen list and 19 of which have been either reimagined or recrafted based on our experiences through the pandemic so those positions are a fiber optic technician in traffic engineering. That is something, you know, increased emphasis on fiber and infrastructure has become very, very important. So that is something that we noted was a need for the government. And so we funded a fiber optic technician position in traffic engineering. One of the other things that we knew was necessary was streets and roads. We've really had a need for more individuals in there. And there's, you'll, if you'll notice, there's two apprentice positions in here. What that does is help us do on-the-job training, where we might not have individuals that have their CDL or qualified immediately, but we can bring them in an apprentice capacity, get them trained up, and then bring them on full-time. We also have the general services commissioner position funded this year. It's been vacant for a couple years, And that was a priority for the mayor. We have a budgeting position, which is focused on our enterprise funds. Our general fund gets a lot of attention and a lot of time from all of our staff. And so there's a position here that really focuses on those enterprise funds with work on the consent decree and the items outside of general fund. We also have the new department in here. This is the department, the commissioner and the AO senior for the mayor's new department for housing that is recommended by the commission report. There's a law position in here that is completely funded by our self insurance fund. We realize that we have a lot of workers' comp claims and other insurance-related claims that are taking a large number of hours from our legal staff. And so being able to fund that out of the insurance fund would be very helpful as far as the workload goes. We have an arborist technician position, which has been desperately needed, especially with the additional amount of trees and green space that we are trying to take care of. Oh, and I skipped one. We have a position in IT that is an abolish and create position. And then we have several items in public safety. So one of the things that came out of the commission report was the request for the neighborhood resource officers and police took that up and asked for that in their budget this year. In addition, they also asked for a sergeant to oversee those resource officers. One of the other things that we know that they desperately needed and they've requested and has been funded are four civilian safety officers. Those were frozen positions and those are being brought back on this year. In fire, there's a fleet operations manager. Our fleet really requires specific attention, particularly in fire. And so that is something that they have requested, as well as a billing specialist. with our ambulance runs we are often having to write off in revenue some of the claims that we're not able to process through our health insurance and it's just because we don't have the information or we are not submitting the claims in a way that they can be paid to the fullest and so they have requested fire has requested with support of revenue a billing position in order to shore up that process and help us recover some of that revenue there In addition, there's some enhanced 911 telecommunicators. They're having a very difficult time filling those positions, and so we have funded three positions there for three months in order to help with that hiring process and the retention of those staff. There's a radio electronics specialist that is going to be split between 911 and FIRE. We have a lot of specialized radio equipment, and we have one individual currently who does a fantastic job, but every once in a while would like to take a vacation, and we need to be able to pass on that knowledge and information as well. In the mayor's office, we have an administrative aide to the mayor's senior. That is specifically to work on the mayor's commission report and all of the projects that are stemming from that. And then, of course, as you all are completely aware, we've had a lot more activity this year with grants and special programs. And so the last two positions are grants and special programs. They're funded primarily by grants and special programs, but they really need some manpower to be able to help them and us get through this time. So that's a list of all the positions. In addition to that, there's a 3% salary increase for all non-sworn personnel. that's representative of about 1.9 million dollars in the general fund we also have increased salary for social workers and engineers that is part of an ongoing process our hr department is typically looking at really hard to fill positions and assessing if they are competitive in the market and those two have come up this year and needed to be adjusted and the last item in payroll and personnel is overtime dollars for the paramedicine program. We have funding from hospitals, and that has been very helpful, but we needed to fund that through the remainder of the year, and the way that we've done that is through overtime that has been backfilled. So I've brought it up a couple of different times, but one of the places that we have decided to spend money this year is addressing and investing in the Mayor's Commission on Racial Justice and equality recommendations. And so that is represented in a variety of places in the budget. So we thought we'd bring those all together on one slide for you. It includes $20,000 for an increase in minority recruiting efforts, $113,000 in personnel for the position within the mayor's office, a $25,000 operating budget for that position, the $602,000 for the neighborhood resource officers and sergeants as well as their vehicles. An extra million dollars to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund on top of our two million dollars that is typical, so a three million dollar investment there. $229,000 for the two new positions in the Department of Housing Advocacy and Community Development and $200,000 for the Code Enforcement Assistance Program. One of the other things that we know is vitally important is investing in our infrastructure. And so we have a rather healthy paving budget this year with $10 million in the bond for paving, as well as a million dollars separate for Manowar. We also have the opportunity of using $2.8 million dollars of MAP funding for paving as well as $271,000 for the survey. So we've invested in this budget just a little over $14 million for paving projects. Down below that is the MAP funding list. The MAP funds are revenues the city receives from the state's collection of motor fuel taxes and funds are distributed on an annual basis. Any funds that we don't use out of this budget get rolled over the next year to do projects with. And so in our MAP funding this year, we have more than we have anticipated. So that's fantastic. We can do more projects. But about one and a half million dollars of this goes to personnel and 1.2 or 1.3 million dollars goes to debt service in addition to those projects. So seven and a half total. One of the other things that became apparent through the course of this budget is that we have several capital items in need of retention. We've previously discussed the $11 million bonded investment in our roadways. But in addition to that, the mayor has included in her bond package $7.3 million for fleet. And that's across government, that's in streets and roads and police and fire, $3.1 million for facilities work on our buildings, on our envelopes, roof, structural review, that kind of thing. and $1 million for technology upgrades in addition to the $2 million investment in the PDR program. So if we pursue the $25 million bond proposed in the mayor's budget in 2022, that would be represented by the orange bar on this chart. As you can see, the bonding over the last 10 years has varied greatly based on the needs that we have at that time. and just to look at it a little bit differently because we've been looking at lots of charts and graphs here is a pie chart depiction of where our general fund money goes by category so this may not surprise anyone but 65 percent of our budget goes towards our personnel and personnel related expenses. Our next largest is our operating at 15% with our debt following at about 12%. Our general fund in the mayor's proposed budget by department also may not surprise anyone as it typically occurs. Our largest portion of this is our public safety sector which is 56% of our budget. So I want to pause right here and see if we'd like to have questions on the general fund before we move on, or if we'd like to continue going through the end of the presentation, Vice Mayor Kay. Council members, if you have questions, why don't we take them now? Starting with the Council Member Lamb. Thank you, and thank you for this presentation. My question is the overtime on the paramedicine program. I know you mentioned it, but let me get back to my page in the presentation. What is the amount on that? It's $70,000. Okay. And that is, is that split between fire and police or? It's in fire. It is just in fire? Okay, because obviously I'm very supportive of that, and I just wanted to get clarification on that because we need to, if anything, we need to beef up our paramedicine program. We took a look at the total cost of the program and what funding we had left available from the hospitals, as well as what we had funded already, and the $70,000 was what we needed to make that complete for the year. obviously that doesn't have an enhancement or any kind of you know extra but that that does cover what we needed to operate it for the year okay all right well I appreciate that clarification thank you thank you vice mayor thank you next would be council member Claver thank you so commissioner I think it's you know obvious when you see that 398 number it's it's a real big number. You said so yourself. It's a little concerning. But I do agree with your optimistic predictions on revenue. I think those are pretty reasonable. I think we're going to have those kind of revenues coming up. I guess my concern comes from an increase in recurring costs. So in this budget, with a lot of the personnel and everything, not that they aren't necessary, but they do come with a recurring cost that'll lead into the next year and going forward, similar to our debt situation. Did we have any reductions in recurring costs or could you break out specifically what that is, what those we're going to be seeing in the budgets going forward as recurring costs out of this budget? So primarily as far as reductions in the recurring costs, what we really focused on was our contractual obligations, particularly with corrections this year we have a exceptional consultant that was able to sit down and look at the corrections contract and we had a rather large reduction to their budget just based on what she's been able to work with and negotiate and their projections for coming back and growing parks has a little bit little bits of reduction in different places we had previously estimated our utilities based on what we thought was going to be coming through with the rate case. We will have a final number at some point for that, but we think we're covered on that, so there may be some availability and reduction, but that would not be until the end of, probably until after this budget process is over, to be perfectly honest. But the other thing that we looked at and we did reduced some was travel. And that's because we're just not seeing the need for travel expenses come back. We're seeing a lot of Zoom and a lot of conferences that are available online and training that's available online. So those are the main items that we did see reductions in this year. Fortunately, a lot of it, our directors were very, very helpful in helping us weed through that and kind of do that in process. And they reduced their requests so that we were able to capture that. And so we've been kind of able to do that as we go to a point where I think it's been beneficial. And I think that the staff feel supported and that their budgets reflect and represent what they actually will need for next year. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Council Member Maloney. Commissioner, I appreciate your presentation. I do have a few questions. When I look at the revenue, we're close to $8 million, which is good. I'm very pleased to hear that we have some money coming in. But when I go to the slide that you're looking at personnel on page, I guess I got page 27 or page, my calculation comes up that it comes up to about $9 million. a new debt for payroll on top of what we have now. Am I correct on that? The total increased personnel is $2.2 million across funds. $1.8 million, this is the new positions, $1.8 million of that is in the general fund. The 3% increase for non-sworn is about $2 million as well. So two, four, and then we have our pension increases. So yes, sir, that would be roughly correct. Well, and I'm sitting here looking at a $22 million shortfall we have. And I'm just being running organizations all my life and business. I always try to get as close as I can to that $22 million. And I'm glad everybody's decided to see this economy is going great, but when we see the debt coming on, we're about to make it worse. So I have concerns about that. And I'm just going to go on record with that. Now, the next concern I have is the stabilization funds. And when it comes to budget, I want to be consistent. I want to know how bad we are. And when I look at some of this stabilization money, we're putting an ongoing expense that we've always been putting in from the revenue. And for example, you're all going to put $3 million in affordable housing in there. When we usually put some, we try to stay close to 1.9. I like to see that 1.9 say in the general funds. I also like to see we did the homeless allocation. That was $750,000. We've always kept that in the general funds. And Lexark, we've always kept it in general funds. and economic development and human rights. And these are ongoing expense that we've been having for years and years. And to me, when you take those out of the general funds, it just sends me a message that the budget is out of whack. And I'm concerned that we should not be taking money out of something we've been in a habit of paying over the years. And now we're putting it back in the state. But this is just me. Some of my colleagues may don't think it's a problem. I do. And I mean, I've done budgets all my life. I just have a problem when you start taking something out as well. And I'm worried about what's going to happen in two years. And when I look at the $22 million with shortfall, and then I look at all this money that we're taking out of now, the stabilization, that we're going to have to come back in two years, put back in to the general funds. I don't know how we're going to be able to figure out how bad things are going to be and and it really basically tells me that if we keep going at this pace we're definitely going to have to raise taxes real quick and I'm not a big fan of that because we're starting to move money around which doesn't give us a chance to see how we could save and make cuts for the next two years because we all know we're coming back to that and if you add the and if you add that let's say it goes up to $25 million shortfall. You add that 25 cents back in when you go from payroll from $2.25 to $2.50. It comes to my question is, and I'm impressed with Council Member Worley who's been working with all these businesses out there, if we raise these taxes up to $2.5, and I know some people I don't think it's going to affect anybody, but I do, because surrounding counties are a lot less than us. and with this pandemic people are used to staying home and they'll probably move their business across and still be here in Lexington I just don't think I don't think the budget is great as everybody says it is that's just me and I'm sorry that's the way I am but I am concerned about it and that's just my point of view of it and but the last comment I'm going to bring up and it's something I've been adamant against for years and that's the math money one of the bears went into there and tapped into that map money and started using map money to pay salaries for employees went for a year way before that all that money went into resurfacing and usually sometimes this is seven million dollars we're getting on i thought it's pretty high usually i've seen anywhere we were getting work from five to three to five to seven seems like it might be the highest I've seen in a long time. But it keeps putting us in more debt when we keep paying employees when that money, to me, I think we're in violation with the state. But our law department argues with me because we're one of the few states that using this money to pay salaries when all the other states are using their money to blacktops. So when we're going out and borrowing money, we could have the state paying that. But that's just to me. I am really concerned about the budget I know some everybody thinks it's a great time to head of it. I disagree. I'm just worried. So I'm trying to reel myself back to reality. But I do have a problem with the math money. So I just want to go on record with that. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, do you want to respond to any and all of that? Or would you like me to go on to the next question? Well, I can just share some of our thinking and my thinking in particular. You know, I've been at the city for six months now, and I came out of grants management. And so this is not necessarily new to me, being able to piece things together and cobble things together and figure out how to make something work. But I do understand that it is very different than how we have typically operated. We have not had grant funding such as it is. And we've not also looked at the budget stabilization or the economic contingency fund as available. That, I think, has changed in the past year. I will say on our slide that says by the numbers that just has the three numbers, the revenue, the expense and the deficit. That is where we are. Our revenues are short of our expenses by twenty two million dollars. And several of the items that we've chosen to balance that deficit come out of the rescue plan or come out of budget stabilization. The thing about the rescue plan is it has a timeline and we tried to look at items that we thought would be eligible. Again, our guidance is very, very limited at this point in time. It is not the only way to do anything by any means. But our alternative is to pay for it out of our budget stabilization, which has no restriction and has no timeline. And so when we were weighing those two conflicting interests, we chose to fund some of it out of the rescue plan. The same way we chose to fund some of it out of budget stabilization or to pre-fund when at all possible. So, you know, we have to present a balanced budget. period. How we get there is a matter of much discussion, and that's perfectly fine and healthy, and that's a really good thing to go through, a really good process to go through. We did try and select items that we thought would be eligible and we thought would be timely, and we do understand we are keeping the eye on the ball as far as, yes, these are going to come back into our budget, but many of these items are a choice. As reflected by last year's budget, we chose to not include some things, and it was hard choices. But as far as our recurring costs, our personnel, our utilities, those kind of items, those are truly recurring. And while several other things are priorities, those are not necessarily as recurring as you would say. They're just a priority for us. Not that they're not just as important, they just are a little bit different. Okay, thank you. Thank you for that. Next, Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. I hope I'm not asking some questions at all. I already asked, I was off line for about 15 minutes, so that's the hazards, but anyway, I'll proceed. Back on the general fund revenue breakdown of the proposed 376 million plus. Yes, sir. That's general funds. Yes, sir. Now, what is the expenses in general fund that match that 376? 398. Well, you've got 398, but that's not general fund money. You're bringing, unless you're bringing stabilization and ARPA, all that money into the general fund first. Is that what you're doing to mix 398? It is not. Our expenses that would hit the general fund would have to balance with the items that we've used. And so we could not have more expenses than the 376 in our general fund, plus the budget stabilization. That's what I'm saying. And this is kind of goes around a little bit because you say there's a shortfall. So there's a shortfall because we want to spend more money. I want to make that clear to the council members when you're looking at pre funding, which is basically kind of a new term for our budgets and our county and in the past and what you're doing when you're taking it 7.9 or 8 million. That's really extra money that we've made this year for fiscal year 21. That's just fund balance overage, right? yes sir okay all right now the use of the budget stabilization that you put in there the current balance is 25,000 what's it going to be after we take the four out of there we'll be back down to 21 the four the budget stabilization once we take right so budgets so the the balance and budget stabilization is reset at the fund balance conversation every October. So you all will look at the total amount of fund balance and decide how much you want to be in budget stabilization. And I want to make sure everybody understands that because our budget stabilization funding a year ago started out at about 11 million. Now we're up to 21 million? Yes, it's about 25 million. So that's extra money that's come in. It's 25 after the 3-9? No, before the 3-9. I'm sorry. So I'm going back down to 21 million. So we've got about a 10 million swing in there that we need to understand as a council, where that money, do we keep it in budget stabilization or do we put it in general fund balance and spend it? Is that a correct statement? Yes, that will be your choice. Yes, sir. Okay. Now, the use of the American Rescue Plan, ARPA, of course, is a, I guess, a wish list. And if I'm understanding correctly, all these things, if we didn't have that particular fund, we would not be adding this $10 million list of items, what I call a wish list, that we need to do. I'm not saying, but it's something that wouldn't even be in the budget if we didn't have this federal money, right? Well, actually, sir, last year you all chose to put those items in particular, those nonprofit partners, they were in the budget. You have traditionally funded them. Not this. No, I'm talking about the 10 million. Yes, sir. In there is LexArts, is Explorium. Okay, there's some of that ESR in there, but you've got 1 million 3 in lakeside irrigation that we had never talked about doing that. although for a few years we know we've needed to do it but now we can pop it in because we've got federal money is that correct the parks items are um they were they came from the conversation that the mayor had with all the different council members about their priorities and yes that it would be a choice as to if you all wanted to do those if there was not any rescue funding right yeah we didn't have the funding some of these wouldn't get done what we didn't get done a year ago. Most of this is non-reoccurring now. That's the part I like. It's not like we're going to have to have that $10 million again next fiscal year 23. One other item. I think I've got just a few minutes. You have about 20 seconds. Well, I need more than 20 seconds. I'm sorry. Council Member Brown, we can come back to you. All right. Come back to me. thank you uh next is uh council member ellinger uh thank you vice mayor uh councilman maloney and fred brown um asked a lot of their questions because i i too like councilman maloney concerned with uh fiscal year 24's budget because it looks like we're 22 million short here and I'm just trying to figure out the numbers here. And how much of that $10 million that we use from the ARP is going to be our normal general fund reoccurring? Because I think if we're going to do the ARP funding, I like when you do the projects, as I think the chair of the budget said, is transformational projects. But when we start adding in the affordable housing allocation, and $3 million, that's something we have had in the general fund as $2 million every year. So that actually in 2024, we'll have to add back into the general fund because we won't have access to this money again, correct? That's correct. How much of that funding came out of the general fund that we normally would have in there that we put in out of the $10 million from the ARPA? because that will go into the uh the 22 million over and above so we'll have those expenses down the road it's actually included in the 22 million but only about four and a half of it would be recurring so four and a half of that of the of the 10 yes sir but not so not all so some of the the the projects won't be recurring but the four and a half mil will is what you're saying so So does that make, so are you saying the 22 is 22 or is it 22 plus four and a half down the road? The 22 encompasses this $10 million. And so that would actually lower, that deficit would lower by these projects that are in the rescue plan. Okay. And I guess that was the question I was going to ask when we looked at, I guess, page 22 to look at these. that that's the 10 million or that's the 22 million in that one and that and as council member brown said that's an unusual we're doing the pre-funding so we're basically spending our surplus that we normally wait till we see what our surplus is and then we the council decides how we want to spend that surplus or the mayor makers makes a recommendation we're just making an earlier recommendation than normal on this right and we have the option to use budget stabilization to balance this budget that is an option but and right now we've used what 3.9 of the budget stabilization yes sir so we could use more than than using the uh this the funding that it's just the way that we're moving the money around i guess is how we're looking at it but i too i too had those concerns as councilor maloney because yes having the 120 million is is nice but in in 2024 we're gonna have to balance his budget and if we get our our revenue so high or expenditure so high we're gonna have to find a way to fund it in two years because we won't have this uh safety net that we have right now so those are my concerns thank you thank you and next is council member reynolds Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you so much, Aaron. I really appreciate all of this. I'm still new to the budget process. But I guess my question is, why do we feel the need to do this pre-funding right now instead of wait and kind of put it together with the whole budget? So if we did not do pre-funding, what this would look like is to take additional budget stabilization dollars to balance that $8 million. So our budget stabilization would go from the use of $4 million to the use of $12 million, which is perfectly fine. One of the real proponents of doing this, in my opinion, is the speed with which we can continue operations. ESR is the one that I'm just going to keep pointing back to, but there are several others that are in there that it would be really helpful to get going on. So let's just talk about ESR for a moment. Typically, if it's funded in the regular budget, we have to wait longer in the process to get that started. If we can go ahead and pre-fund that, which is $3.6 million of the $8 million, it's a good chunk of that amount. We can go ahead and get our partners going on their RFPs, doing all of the process that we would go through. And then come July 1st, we can get going on those projects. I think that really is beneficial, particularly now, because we don't want to lose momentum through all of the additional resources that we've had. And our partners don't want to have, you know, kind of a drop in activity and then pick back up. And so I think that one's really important. The other thing that is in this pre-funding is several of the purchased items that we would need to do anyway that I think that we're going to get behind if we wait to order until everybody has all of their coronavirus relief money or their new rescue plan money. Everybody's going to be doing the same thing and ordering at the same time. So things like our ballistic vests or our mobile data computers that are in the vehicles, it would just be really nice to go ahead and get going on that order and get that process so we can get that stuff in the pipeline. That is really one of the major, major benefits that I see. Okay, technically, we can reimburse the budget stabilization fund with the fund balance if we wanted. If you wanted. Okay. And with the ESR, we wouldn't be changing their normal schedule. It would just be like any other year if we waited. Right. It would just be moving it up a little bit if we did the pre-funding. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Commissioner, for the presentation so far. I think Council Member Maloney and Council Member Brown, you know, I think they made a lot of relevant comments in regards to questioning the pre-funding and then also the ARP funds. But I appreciated the conversation that we had last week, you and I did in my office, about how it makes sense to take this opportunity to use these one-time grant funds to pay for some things in our budget, this mayor's proposed budget, in regards to giving us maximum flexibility to use our other funds, like the general fund and the budget stabilization. But I think, you know, along those lines, I think Councilmember Clover and other council members comments in regards to the 20 million dollar gap that we know exists between our revenues and our expenses. I think we just have to be mindful about growing those reoccurring costs. we just have to I think we're just going to have to try to have a conversation with the public and get them to understand that that that gap is there and it continues to grow and that now that we have an opportunity to use these federal funds as our community rebounds from the COVID year I think we do that but we got to be mindful about where we allocate those funds whether they're capital projects and whether or not they're going to have a reoccurring expense as we go forward. Well, let me ask you a question in regards to the ARP. The guidance that you're using to include those funds in the proposed budget, are those final guidance, guidelines, or are you all just kind of making an educated guess based on the information that you have now that we will be able to use those funds for those initiatives? So this is the initial guidance. We've been promised additional guidance May 10th, which in my experience, the federal government doesn't always hit their deadlines. So I'm looking forward to seeing when we get additional guidance, when that will be. But this guidance is what is written in the act. This is in fall. This is what they passed. And it is broad. And what we are looking for is the clarification of the guidance that we have. So it's not completely a shot in the dark. We took what they've given us and we very carefully looked at the items that we thought might be eligible and the things that we thought might be most eligible. And those are the items that we've selected to fund in that way. This is not to say that if they come back and say, you know, this more specific guidance or the stricter, you know, look at this doesn't make it doesn't make it ineligible at the time that it comes down. But we have taken what they've given us thus far and tried to analyze what we put in there based on those requirements. And I think that's helpful as a link chair. I know we just have to keep that in consideration as we come back out of links and make adjustments to the budget that we don't know the complete and final rules in regards to guidance of this of using these monies. And and we just I guess we just have to be mindful of that going forward. So thanks for thanks for the presentation. Thanks, vice mayor. Thank you. I've got a couple people in line, but I want to get in line myself. So my first question for the commissioner is, when you were thinking about what kinds of things to propose for pre-funding, what else did you consider? Were there some other things that you thought might be eligible, but on balance you decided not to do that? Same thing with the ARP money. we've got a list what else could have been on that list or is that something you could get to us um I certainly could could get it to you but also um you know in thinking about what we were going to include on pre-funding one of the main things that we looked at was what is in time what what time is timely and what are good things that we could go ahead and get going and second what are things that are not $2,000 a piece, because we were proposing $8 million. So if it was $2,000 per line item, that would be a whole lot of things as opposed to just a few larger items. And so we were able to look at the capital request list that the divisions had given us, as well as what we thought would be nice to go ahead and get in the pipeline. And that is how we made the pre-funding decisions of what got included there. On the rescue plan side, we took a look at the eligible criteria and what they're telling us right now. And one of the things that I'll just talk about that came up and we thought, oh gosh, that would really throw everybody off is it looks to be that the emergency management division or the division of social services would be eligible under this grant because they are addressing the impacts of COVID. But if we put an entire division over there, obviously one, it's a recurring cost and two, that would probably throw everybody for a loop. So we decided to put specific projects with a particular price tag over there and items that were discretionary at year all's discretion, we could choose or not choose to fund in any given year. They really are not what we would call recurring costs. They're not the personnel. They're not the utilities. They're not those things that we're responsible for day in and day out. But they really are priorities and things that we know are important to the council and important to the mayor. Okay. And then a very specific question. We had discussed the money that was characterized as reimbursement into the Economic Contingency Fund. Could you just explain a little bit more about why it went in and why I will be proposing to take it out? Sure. So the Economic Contingency Fund received $6.4 million as part of the fund balance conversation last year. And that was intended to reimburse the economic contingency fund for what we thought we were going to need to spend out of that this year. As we've been discussing, our revenues are better than expected. And so we have not had to do that. We have not had to pull that money out of the economic contingency. And so that 6.4 just appears to be an additional contribution at this point because it's not reimbursing. And so in conversation with Vice Mayor Kay and in conversation with our legal team, those funds were put in there with a different purpose and a different intent. And so what would need to happen to remove them since they were put in by resolution, we will need to amend the resolution to remove them and then do a budget amendment to move it from economic contingency to budget stabilization. Okay. I hope council understands what that means is that that money would go back into the budget stabilization fund. There actually would be more there that could be used or not, or left, whichever. And one other thing we also talked about kind of netting, taking, putting, leaving in than the 1.2 million that we would have contributed in fiscal year 20 and 21, so that we keep building, as we had intended, the economic contingency fund. And then I guess before I recognize the two people waiting in line, just a kind of a comment. from a certain perspective what I think council needs to decide is no matter where the money is ostensibly coming from because we know it can come from a number of resources no matter where it's coming from is this something we want to fund and are there other things that we want to fund that are equally important and then I think we can make some determination about whether it make sense to categorize them as coming from the budget stabilization fund or ARP money or wherever. But I find it hard to get my head around exactly the movement of those funds. But I think at bottom, it's all in one, it's all money. And we have to decide how to spend it. And then we have to work on the appropriate categories for taking that money as we construct the budget. And I hope we can do it that way. And I've talked before about basically aiming in our conversations for looking at all the options. And that's why I asked for what else was considered in thinking about taking money and pre-funding or taking money from the projected ARP money. I think we need to look at all the possibilities, weigh them against one another, figure out what we think the most important ones are, and then make some determination about how to do the bookkeeping on all of those funds. So I'll quit at that point and recognize Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do have a concern. Before the pandemic, we were $20 million short. fall. We had a budget that the mayor put in and she left out the affordable housing and she left out the ESR in there at $20 million shortfall. And as I sit here today, we are saying that when we come back to reality in 2024, the $3 million that we didn't put in last year's budget in the 3.7 million I think we're putting in ESR this year, it's going to still be at $20 million in 2024? My math is getting out of whack here. That's why I have a problem when you're putting continuing funds into this stabilization fund. It's just confusing the living heck out of me right now because I'm counting $26 million new money that we didn't before we even went into this crisis. We were $20 million shortfall, and we put none of the money in affordable housing or ESR, but now we're turning, and the only way I think it would work if we had a surplus, which we did, $8 million, but you just wiped it all out when we hire all these new employees and do the payroll, we only have a one, we're in the whole $1 million. So I do have a serious problem with it, and going back to stabilization, and maybe I'm confused about it because when we did this pay We put $9 or $10 million in there because we knew we were going to have to pay the retirement system. And I thought we had an ordinance in there. And I understood we might have changed it last year because we didn't have to pay the state any money. That we were able to be flexible because we were getting $25 million back in that we could pay that money back off the stabilization and put it back into where it is. I thought that stabilization money is supposed to go to the pension because I'm telling you folks, it's going to be $24 million before it's all over with when we pay all this stuff every year more. So that's why I want to be sure we make sure that stabilization is where it's supposed to be to pay for those retirees and retirements. And I don't mean to be a pain here, but the numbers are just not adding up to me here. And that's why I get confused. and I appreciate what but I hope you understand is it true that this money that we're talking about today the $3 million and all this money and the stabilization money is going to be only $20 million if we go into 2024 and I'm confused because we were $20 million short before we even put any money in I hope you understand where I'm coming from and understand why I am confused About the pension? No, not the pension. I'm talking the pension. The stabilization should be left alone. Once we get back to real earth, we should have $12 to $13 million to keep paying the pension and the stabilization. I don't think we should be using the money for anything else. I'm concerned about the $3 million that we didn't put in the budget last year, that you're putting in the budget this year for affordable housing. And the $3 million we're putting in the budget for the ESR were not put in the budget last year. even though we came back and did the stabilization money to put the $2.1 million and the $1.9 for the ESR. But we're going way up this year. But before that, we were $20 million in the hole before we even funded any of these. So when you add those two in there, I can't, I just try to figure out how we're getting back to $21 million. I think we're $25 million. So to Vice Mayor Kay's point, we also have some growth in revenue that we're projecting. And so we are growing our expenses, but our revenue is also growing. They're just not growing at the same rate of speed. And so we are really trying to manage that expectation and project that out and see where we're going to be. In addition to being thoughtful and using the one-time funding that we are anticipating getting so that we can, one, get the things done that we need to get done, but two, make good decisions with our regular revenue so that we can have some kind of savings and so that we can get out of that wedge, if you will. I keep drawing a triangle because our expenses are accelerating faster than our revenues. And that is not different than pre-pandemic. That is where we were before. Last year, we had a $36 million shortfall just to balance. And we didn't have any of this stuff in here. So the fact that that has been reduced a little bit is attributable to us looking at our expenses and adjusting where we can and looking at our revenues and projecting higher. but systemically you're absolutely correct our our expenses are growing faster than our revenues um again that is why we're really trying to be thoughtful about this one-time money and to try and not use our our savings that we'll probably need when we come out of this until we can get those things to to come back together um in a more appropriate manner Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I was just going to echo what the commissioner was just saying. If you go back to the basic premise of this budget, the last several years, our expenses are not growing, are growing faster than our revenues. That delta has been there for years. It's going to continue to be there until we structurally revisit how this government is funded. Period. In my personal opinion, that delta has not crossed and come crossing until our revenues start picking up faster than our expenses. And that's a wage growth issue. We've held expenses. That's why we've kept the budget there. We've used one-time money, which is why we've kept the budget whole. That doesn't go away just because we have $100 million coming in. That's the same. And that is going to be the same problem we have next year and the next year until the structural part of our budget is fixed. Meaning our revenue starts to grow at a faster pace than our expenses. That's all. We can fund it all these things a variety of different ways. I mean, it's just moving which account we want to pay for it for. That's it. We don't carry funds over year to year. We pay for the budget that we want to fund. We pay for the government we want to have this year. And this is how we're choosing to pay for it. And really, all we're discussing is which avenue we're going to pay for what we'd like to see in our city this year. That's all. Thank you. Next is Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I wanted two or three things. One, that 6.4 that you're going to introduce to go back out of the economic recovery contingency fund back into realization, the utilization, what is it? Capital stabilization. Stabilization fund. That's great. I think that's exactly where it needs to go right now. We need to do it as quick as possible so that we can get that fund, the contingency fund, right where we want it. Then we go over to the stabilization fund. We start working on that because we need to analyze that fund. Like Richard had said, we need to analyze that. What do we need going forward to keep in that fund, which should be our retirement fund, period. Now, going back to the contingency fund, that's got a lot of restrictions. So we want to get that money back out of there as quick as we can. But once you do that, if you get those two funds, it makes it a lot more simpler to me in a budget process and accounting process to say we've got these separate funds and these are what they're going to be used for. Now, going back, one of the other things that I think when you're looking at that pre-funding of $8 million, I think there's been comments there. We usually in the past have always waited and done those type of things after we found out what the fund balance was. Well, right now we've had the luxury to say, since we've had a lot of reduction in expenses, we've had the luxury to say right now we have $8 million. but anyway that pre-funding I don't know I have a little bit of a problem with that but and then the other item that I wanted before I run out of time here is bond projects we've got bond projects at 24 million 843 296 and I've already mentioned to the mayor and the and to CAO that there's some small items in that bonding project that shouldn't be there. We shouldn't be bonding stuff under $100,000 or under $500,000 even. We ought to find someplace to bring those out of our general fund. And I'm hoping as we go forward, if that $7.9 million fund balance actually grows, that we can reduce this bond project down to a more reasonable amount and pay off some of those and put some of those smaller ones in general fund. Because as we look to the future, we don't want to bond any more than we have to. But there's some things we have to do. We know that. But we wanted to keep that bond down to $20 million if we could. Now, that was my spiel on that and then and when the time comes I'm going to introduce if if need be a budget reduction or a budget amendment to take some of those bond projects out of there and put them into general funds so that's all I have thanks thank you uh councilmember Lamb has not spoken yet I'll recognize her first councilmember Lamb I believe commissioner Hensley might want might have wanted to respond to council member fred brown i don't want to circumvent that process okay thank you so much i would like to add just for your all's knowledge because i didn't know this either um in 2015 for the 2016 fiscal year we actually pre-funded 10 million 436 400 dollars um i wasn't here at that time that was a very large large pre-funding amount but that wasn't so long ago. That was 15 and 16. So, you know, there has been some precedence for doing that. We actually pre-funded in that year a large number of vehicles and chose not to bond them, but rather to pre-fund them. And so there is some precedent for that. We did go back and look at some of these to see if we were way out of line with our recommendation. And in the not so distant past we did have a pre-fund that was was rather healthy. Thank you Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Okay, Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Thank you Vice Mayor and thank you Commissioner Hensley. I guess my only question is the Economic Contingency Fund slash Rainy Day Fund. We have a resolution out there that states what we the level or percentage of that we want to to get that fund to. And right now you're saying it's 42 million. The balance? The balance of the economic contingency fund? Currently it's 42 million. If you all amend the resolution with Vice Mayor Kay's recommendation that we net that against the two years, that'll pull 5 million down. And the ordinance when it was passed originally was to be 10% of our revenues in that fund. And so as our revenues grow, so too does our recommended balance in that fund. So we will continue to try and catch up, but hopefully our revenues continue to grow and it'll take us some time at $600,000 a year to get there. And then my other comment would be, I understand about the removing the money from the contingency fund because of the way everything transpired. But I believe that the actual percentage in the market is that recommended percentage is higher than 10%. If I remember correctly, off the back of my head, it's 12%, I think. Is that fair to say for your economic contingency fund that you would have 12%? So GFOA, Government Finance Officers Association's recommendation is two months of operating for any government. That is their recommendation. I think Moody's has a different recommendation. I think they're at 15%. They used to be at 10. So there's a variety of recommendations that are out there. Our ordinance established 10, so that's where we have been. But depending on who you talk to, there's a different recommendation on what what that balance actually would be. Well, all I'll say is, is if it's 42, I would make a play that we leave it there because it's taken a long time to get it there. And so if we have other means of taking care of business, I think the budget stabilization fund is it's it was created specifically to pay for the phase in pension costs. that again just like everything else has has been placed i don't know if it was placed on hold but the phase in wasn't rolled out as as we anticipated exactly it will be but i just think that there's an opportunity here for us to leave that 42 in the economic contingency fund and then i feel like that we're ahead of the game. And that's just, I appreciate all the comments that my colleagues have said. This has been a very robust conversation, needless to say. But I would like to, hopefully that when we get ready to take consideration about taking any money out of the economic contingency that we really think long and hard about it. So thank you so much, Commissioner. And thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And next is Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mary. I want to talk a little about the contingency rainy day fund. I was on that way back when we put the 10% on there with Dr. Stevens and Kevin Stennett, and we worked hard to get that money up there. There's a lot of restrictions now. You said $42 million, then you said you're going to take $5 million. I thought it was $6.4 million. What's the difference between the $6.4 million and the $5 million? So 6.4 was what was put in there for reimbursement with that resolution. It's 269-2020. And 6.4 was what was put in. Vice Mayor Kay has made a recommendation that we net that against what we did not put in in 20 and what we did not put in in 21. And so the difference of the 6.4 and the $1.2 million is the $5 million that would come out. Okay. And once it goes in the economic contingency, aren't there restrictions once it's in there on what we can do? Can we take it out or what's it in? Because I know there's a whole lot more restrictions in that than the budget stabilization. and and along with that it's my understanding in the mayor's budget this one that she did not add in the the 50,000 per month which comes to 60 600,000 for this this fiscal year so we're not adding actually any more to it and we're just going to be taken out like council member lamb said and i think if this is an important one that we need to uh keep at least the 10 percent i'll let you answer that? Well, based on the balance that was in the fund when we did the budget, the mayor did not recommend putting any additional in there. But Dave Barber is here, and so I'm going to let him speak to the legal aspect of the Economic Contingency Fund. Thank you. And I only have a short time, so I don't want you lawyers taking a call. Good afternoon. So yes, there are restrictions on that money. I think that's the basis for wanting to take that amount or whatever amount you all decide that might be short of that $6.4 million out of there at this point in time. The law department does not think that $6.4 is under the same restriction based on the circumstances that it was put in under. So we think you can take up to $6.4 million out of that fund. I think what is being discussed is, do you hold back $600,000 a year? And for how many years do you do that? Because we didn't put anything in, in 20 or 21. And now you have 22 coming up. So do you, do you take all 6.4 out? Or do you take 6.4 less 1.2, which would be two years worth of the contributions? Or do you possibly under this idea of pre-funding do you you know do you take out 6.4 less 1.8 and so I think those are the options that are potentially in play for you all to discuss anything from the entire 6.4 to something less than that whatever all whatever amount you all feel comfortable leaving in there but once you leave it in there I think it would be subject to those restrictions that you've mentioned and it would be harder for you all to spend that going forward okay thank you so if we do take out uh the 6.4 less the 1.2 then we're going to be below the 10 percent because the four right what is it now 398 so it would be right at 40 it would be at the 10 percent is that the right the number it's actually written based on revenues so 376 but three so okay all tomato okay and then and then the last uh when you build a budget you build on priorities i i have to look at this budget on certain things that should be in the general fund and not being pulled from other funds affordable housing the fund we had to add back in this past year the esr the council had to add back in and both of those were doing either by the arp or the pre-funding part of it and i think those along with the homeless allocation which we're going to do each and every year should not be coming out of other funds. They should be in the general fund and we build the rest of it after we put in the stuff that's going to be reoccurring that this council and its priorities. And when we get to 2024, we're going to have to go back and add these in. Or if they don't put it in, the council is going to have to do it again. And I think we need to put it in now and show that these are our priorities, not from other funds, but from the general fund. Those are just my comments. Thank you. Thank you. And right at the moment, nobody else has signed up. I've got a couple comments to add in no particular order. But first, I think it's important to understand that the Budget Stabilization Fund, which was set up with the intention of having that money be available to meet pension obligations, was never stipulated to be only used for that. It never was. That was part of the conversation, but it was not a specific allocation for whatever reason. And then secondly, it has become a different thing. The budget stabilization fund right now is a place for council to basically park money. When we get reimbursed from the previous federal allocation, that's where that money was placed so that we could use it basically at our discretion. And I think it's hard to keep it all in our heads, but essentially the budget stabilization fund right now functions as a short-term savings account. is where we put funds that otherwise would either have to go to economic contingency or be placed in some account. And when we had that conversation, this was the recommendation, as I recall, from Council Member Farmer. He said, let's just take the excess money that we have that we did not anticipate. We'll put it in the budget stabilization fund as a place to hold it while we figure out what's happening longer term with the budget. So essentially that's how it's been functioning. And as to the specifics about what gets in and what gets out of the pre-funding if we do that, I don't think anybody would think that I've not been a supporter of affordable housing and ESR. nonetheless i think if we have an opportunity to pre-fund them we do that but we are very clear that this is a fiscal maneuver it does not signify any less support for those programs and it does not signify that going forward we have to make a special argument to put them back in the regular budget. So in my mind, for both of those funds, ESR, I agree with the thought that pre-fund it so we can get started and we can give the agencies which really need as much lead time as possible, let's give them a little more lead time. And for affordable housing, let's tell the affordable housing board they've now got another three million dollars and they can begin to work on new projects they don't have to wait for the budget to be approved but again it does not signify any less support for them so I guess I'll just reiterate one thing I've already said it seems to me that our task is to figure out first what we think we want to fund. Out of all the things that the mayor has proposed and whatever else might come out of links are our individual recommendations. And then the question is the mechanics. Where do we specify that those funds will come from given how we would like to operate government? And not get stuck, I hope, We don't get stuck on kind of concerns about a particular fund at a particular moment. And maybe one other thing. When we entered 2020, when we were building the 2020 budget, we had, we anticipated a $20 million shortfall, and that did not occur. When we anticipated, when we built the 21 budget, we anticipated a significant shortfall. That did not occur. Now, a part of what's going on is that some of what we thought we would have to pay for out of our general fund got reimbursed. And so it generated, according to our budget, it generated some additional funding. And that money went into the budget stabilization fund. we're going to be in a situation for the next two years where we will be doing this same dance of allocating money and looking for reimbursement and getting some and having more money than we thought we were going to have. And hopefully the trend that we see where our revenues start to increase again continues. But in the meantime, I think we have to be, I hear what everybody's saying. We have to be careful. We have to be frugal. We have to understand that come 2024, we may have some hard decisions to make. In the meantime, I think we need to make our decisions based on what we know at this moment. So thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, colleagues. Unless anybody has anything else for the Commissioner, we can end that and we can continue our own conversation about revenue and expenses and how we want to approach this next budget. Council Member Lamb, are you up for one more for the commissioner or next item? Yes, please. Just, just, I was just one request based on all the conversation that we've had today. I think that it would be really good for us to revisit what the resolution resolution that set the budget stabilization fund is and then the resolution and think it was a resolution it might have been an ordinance that actually where we uh i can't think of what it was called but where we were were funding the esr and then we said that we were going to put the money back in um i wish i was could be more specific on it but there those two doc two doc two ordinances or resolutions, if those could be sent out to us, I think that'd be really helpful just so that we understand the language that's used in those. And Commissioner, I can be more specific. I just can't right now because I can't formulate the right words. You would like a copy of the resolution where council put the 6.4 in economic contingency for reimbursement purposes? as well as the resolution or maybe it was an ordinance that that created the budget stabilization fund that was back four years ago maybe 2018 yes okay thank you thank you so much thank you vice mayor thank you and now council member blitzow has a comment i'm sorry vice mayor but the commissioner hasn't finished her presentation she still has restricted funds to go through, I believe. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Or if you all just want to look at the presentation and let me know if you have any questions, I can do that too. They're pretty self-explanatory, but I'm happy to go through them. So given, well, if council member do you have a question about those i think she needs to go on and do we got a couple new council members here and this is their first time they've said here we need to hear everything that we shouldn't hide anything from these new council members so i think we need to follow on with this point well taken uh council commissioner if you would complete your presentation i apologize for trying to cut it short that's okay let's try this one more time sorry I think I had it all right do you all see other major funds no ma'am technology is wonderful except when it isn't i practice and everything it's just not working well while she's while she's looking for that i'll take the opportunity to make oh she's got it forget it it's up okay thank you ma'am ashley keeps in straight tell you what all right um so this is moving outside of our general fund uh the first one we're going to talk about is the urban services fund it's made up of the three um the three different pieces of the urban services district so full urban services i'm sorry commissioner i hate to interrupt yes If you could get the actual presentation full screen without your notes, I think it'd be easier for people to see. You're so helpful. Yes, sir. Hold on just one second. I'm just going to read my notes. How about that? There we go. Sorry, but it's not up again. Yeah, never should have stopped at the end of general fund. If it's no. If it's easier to just put up what you had, then go right ahead. There you go. There we go. Okay. Can you see urban services fund? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So the urban services fund is made up of the full urban services, which three service districts, excuse me, full urban services, the refuse and street cleaning and street lights or any combination of those three. It's paid for through our property tax assessments. And since our current year expenses exceed our current year revenue, we are balancing this fund with our fund balance in that fund. So within here is six and a half, just a little over six and a half million dollars worth of capital expenditures, which includes three and a half million dollars for refuse trucks and $300,000 for street sweepers, plus various building repairs for our waste management facilities. the next fund is our municipal aid fund we discussed that briefly earlier um that is from our collections from the state of our motor vehicle fuel tax we estimate that but balances may vary depending on how much actually comes in any revenue exceeding our operating in our capital transfers into the next year and kind of rolls along as a fund balance. So one of the big things that is important in here, and we've already discussed it, is that we were able to use $2.8 million of this just for paving in addition to the bonded paving amount. The next item, very small fund, the Mineral Severance Fund. It's just estimated over $300,000 worth of revenue with operating expenses of only $250,000. Typically, we pay for the trail maintenance and the long line striping out of this fund, and that is going to continue as proposed this year. The next item is our sanitary sewer operational fund. Our revenue exceeds our operating and our capital in this fund. And so what happens is that creates the balance of funds that goes towards our consent decree. And so we have two separate funds for sanitary sewer, the operating and the capital. We're going to see the capital in just a minute. But this includes funding for Town Branch and West Hickman Treatment Plant, the capital repairs and maintenance there, as well as, again, those revenues that exceed expenses rolling into the sanitary sewer construction fund. This is where our EPA consent decree projects are held. in addition to the fund balance that rolls in. If we need additional funding for those projects, we have in the past accessed KIA loans in order to be able to fund those. So that's really fantastic. We get a really good rate and we don't have to go out to the open market to bond those. So again, the excess revenue in that fee versus the, I'm sorry, the excess revenue in that fund as well as any kind of bonding we would need is what is addressing our consent decree items at this point in time. Next, we have the water quality fund. That is a bill that is on your Lexer bill, and it is for storm sewer operations and capital construction. So again, this one has revenue that exceeds operating and capital. That balance goes over to its construction fund. but what is of note in this one is that the panhandler fan litter pickup program is in this fund and it's funded for $120,000 next year and so that's something that has typically been of note and something that that folks have been really interested in so that one is in here it's funded in water quality I thought this was really interesting because the amount of litter it keeps out of our water system and then again the water quality construction fund this receives uh the fund balance from those those um revenues on your lexer bill in order to address these capital projects and so there is some operating dollars in this water quality construction fund and that primarily goes to professional services for engineering and project management for those projects. Also in here is $1.5 million for the Water Quality Incentive Grant Program, which gives funding to businesses, schools, churches, and nonprofits to educate citizens about stormwater and water quality issues. Lastly, but not least, is our landfill fund. It is paid for by the landfill portion of your Lexer bill and was established to account for the expenses associated with capping and closing of a landfill. So this is one that has a rather large fund balance, but the expenses that would be associated with either changing landfills or moving or having different vendors would be rather costly and so we have retained a larger fund balance in this item in order to address that if that becomes a need. In here are some large capital expenditures for this year, $650,000 for waste transfer station floor replacement, very expensive, as well as $200,000 for the Haley Pikes sewer pipe project. And that is the end of my presentation. Do we have any questions on any of the other funds. And my apologies for the technical. Council members, it's three minutes before three. And I would ask, unless you have something suppressing, that you direct your questions directly to the commissioner so that we can wrap up. But I see Councilmember Maloney's hand up. So Councilmember Maloney, is there something that needs to be? Yeah, I want to ask a couple questions on the map money. When we bond 10 years ago or 12 years ago, we bond 13, 14 million dollars. When are these bonds going to be paid off on the blacktop? Are they coming up or do we have the shows when these bonds are starting to be paid off? I assume that in how many years do we do these bonds for when we do the blacktop? I thought it was 10 years or 15. That's what I'd like to know those answers. And the other question I have is how much money is in that landfill that you said there's a large amount of money in there. How much is in there? So paving is typically a 10-year item in answer to your question. Depending on how we structure the bond, the whole bond may be paid out over a longer period of time if there's a large number of items that are 20 years that are in that. But typically, the paving is a 10-year project. And as far as the landfill fund fund balance, I can get you the June 30th last year when we closed fund balance at the end of last year. But then whatever happens this year, we'll change that fund balance and we'll know at the end of this year. Thank you. I can email that to you if that's okay, Councilmember. That'd be good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Commissioner, for all of that. and everybody else who's worked on again more presentations about the budget and we'll have to postpone our conversation to continue thinking about how the budget needs to be constructed and unless there is any further comment I would entertain a motion to adjourn And once we adjourn, I've got 2.59. We'll take 10 minutes before we come back for the work session. Motion to adjourn? So moved. I have a motion. And I have a second hand or a third hand or a fourth hand. Thank you very much. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you.