Music Thank you. Welcome to the Committee of the Whole. We'll ask the meeting to come to order. The Committee of the Whole is meeting today, and for those in our viewing audience who may not know what the Committee of the Whole represents, the Committee of the Whole is the whole council, W-H-O-L-E, council. all of the council members. And we are meeting today to discuss the budget and specifically the report outs from our council links, the council links, L-I-N-K. Links are groups of council members, about three each, which meet with various departments in the government to review the budget. Those links have been meeting and are now reporting out to the full council, so the full council will have an understanding of the detail work that each of the links has been engaging. So with that preview, we have on our agenda today the first – Well, I'll just share all the council links that will report out today. The first one will be the general government link. That is chaired by Council Member Tom Blues. The second report out will be... Vice Mayor? Yes, sir. We just got out of Water Resources Oversight Committee meeting and still putting together some materials for the committee, and Georgetta's doing that, and she will need to get to the overhead for our presentation. So if the second person on our list could go first, we'd be most grateful. Let's see if that's good. I know that we're in a similar situation with public works and environmental quality. Council Member James has asked that it stay at third place. So how about Council Member Peggy? Are you ready to rock and roll here today? Somebody bring it on. everybody's been as council member gordon was just saying here's a sidebar everyone's been working hard especially the chairs and their aides to bring these reports together well we may be set you may be ready after all Can you give the commuter a few seconds? I'm sorry, why don't you speak into the microphone there? Can you give the computer a few minutes to get up and going? I think we can manage that. We always want to give computers plenty of time to operate. Let's just bear with the computer for a minute or so. Georgetta, if you'll let us know when we're ready. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor, our computer problem has remained, so Council Member Henson has agreed to go forward. Okay. First. Thank you, sir. Well, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Our links committee met with staff. Well, first of all, we have budget and finance, and we met with the Department of Finance and Administration on Wednesday, April 22nd. The budgets for the divisions of revenue, accounting, purchasing, community development, and human resources were reviewed. The LINC's committee did not review risk management budget, which was transferred to the Department of Law in accordance with the Management Partners Report. And the Office of Policy and Budget was assigned to the General Government LINC. Based on the review of these budgets, the LYNC's committee recommends that the YMCA subsidy for non-collective bargaining employees be reinstated at a cost of $90,000. The committee also recommended that the LFUCG-sponsored optional flu immunization be reinstated at a cost of $20,000. That was both within the Division of Human Resources. So this left a total of additional cost of $110,000 that we recommended adding to the budget. The Department of Social Services, we met on April 30th and May 5th. The budgets for the Commissioner's Office and for the Divisions of Family Services, Youth Services, Adult and Tenant Services were reviewed. The LINCS Committee did not review the budgets for outside partner agency, which is conducted by the outside agency oversight committee. Based on the review of these links, the committee supports the Division of Adult and Tenant Services request to create a new position of social services coordinator with a salary range of $34,650 to $55,427. The interim recreation supervisor, Mr. Kevin Edmonds, who has also been managing the Black and Williams Center would be reassigned to the new position. The recreation supervisor position was abolished in a prior budget year. Maximum budgetary impact for physical year 2010 is 18,172. The PAQ was completed and forwarded to human resources. the LINCS recommended or supports the Division of Youth Services request to fund the program administrator for the day treatment center at a cost of $90,000. So the changes for the Department of Social Services would be a total of $108,172 additional dollars. So our links would recommend a grand total of $218,172. Thank you, Council Member Henson. That's the report out then. Any questions? Yes. Comments? Council Member James. Council Member Henson, you mentioned a PAU was completed and forwarded to HR. Can you explain a little bit? I'm not familiar with what that process is you're talking about. Can you explain a little bit about what that means and for which positions? Commissioner Helms here. She probably could explain better, but I believe it's just a change in a position status. I know you asked the question but I did not hear it. Sure. I'd be happy to repeat it. That's fine. reported out that the LINC completed a PAQ and forwarded it to HR, and I didn't know if it was for the Adult and Tenant Service position or for the Youth Service position and exactly what that process is. Yeah, the position, I believe during the LINC meeting, there was a request for reinstatement of a program administrator position. This is a position that previously had been the senior administrative position at the Day Treatment Center. That person retired in November. And based on the request for that position and then following that, the discussion that was held at the outside agency committee about the need to continue to really monitor our partner agencies, what I have asked the link to do is to reconsider that position rather than it being a position, a program administrator position, right at Day Treatment Center, that it be a broader position so that I could have someone to oversee the activities there at Day Treatment Center, plus really begin to do a little bit more with the partner agencies in light of the conversation that we had at the outside agency committee. Okay. So what you did was rewrite the job description? Yeah, the job description is really in process. It is not totally completed, but yes. Okay. And then what happens once it goes to HR, from your understanding? Does it still need to go to the mayor for sign-off and approvals? Okay. And was this a position that you already talked with the mayor about? Well, it's a position that we have been talking about. We really did not realize that we were going to need the position, especially at Day Treatment Center. We had tried to give some of the responsibility for the oversight to a staff member, and that just simply has not worked out as well as we would have liked for it to have worked out. And then, again, with the discussion about the outside agency, the need for the partner agency oversight, that really just came up at the meeting not too long ago. So, no, this was not part of our long-term discussions and thought processes. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Helm. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Anyone else? Any questions for Council Member Henson? Council Member Henson. I just wanted to also say that if any summary information is desired, we can get that to you. But each of the divisions did a very good summary of their budgets for this year, and I can get that to you if you'd like. Council Member Gordon. Council Member Henson, I just have a quick question about the two items under human resources, the $90,000 for the YMCA subsidy. Is that recommendation to fund it at the same level we have been, the same percentage in the past? It is. We were just asked. It was cut from the budget. We were just asked that it be reinstated. I think that's a great benefit for our employees if we're really about wellness. That's a good one. And then the flu immunizations, is that based on that $20,000, is that based on last year's cost? Correct. There are estimated number of the employees that take advantage of that time the cost of the flu shot. Do you know offhand how many employees did get the flu shot here, or does anyone know that? And how much we subsidize, how much do we pay per employee? Does anybody know that question or that answer? Because I know the cost of flu shots went up, and I wondered how that works. I do not know the answer. I can get with Michael Allen and see the total number last year and what our costs were, but I do not know the answer. And if you could also, I'd be interested to know how much per flu shot we give, we pay. Do you know that? No, I can get those two numbers, the cost and the number of giving. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any other questions, comments for Councilmember Henson? I have one. Can you, for those of us who either having a forgetful moment or or just don't know, can you give us the history of the YMCA membership subsidy? Can someone give us that history? the way, the method of accounting for the $90,000? I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, what was the second question? The history of the YMCA commitment and the method of accounting for the, is there a per diem system or is it a flat fee? Is it a lump sum? That's the question. We're calling Michael Allen so he can come and give you specifics. I can give you my broad understanding of how that works. I don't know how many years ago, but several years ago, we went into an agreement with the YMCA that would subsidize their membership, individual or family, that an employee would choose to have with them. The employee chooses what is appropriate for their situation, and then per the scale that was negotiated with the YMCA, we paid part of that. The employee pays part and we pay part. Then the tracking, the YMCA keeps track of how many people are in the program, what that cost is. I think as a matter of fact they could even give us how many times they come in and use the facility, but I don't believe we're getting that information yet, although it's been offered to us. So those are the pieces of the puzzle that I'm aware of. Council Member Myers. Thank you Vice Mayor. I'd like to add to that, that when we entered into that agreement with them, since then we have had a 100% increase in participation of city employees. So Mr. Allen, when he gets up here, if he comes up, I don't know if he's on his way up here to the chambers or not, We've talked in Outside Agency Oversight Committee about getting some numbers that reflect how much in savings that is to the city in terms of health care costs. It's going to be a while before we can understand what that savings is. But I would venture to say, and I think everybody on the committee agreed, that when you have 100 percent increase in participation and citizens, employees, and their families are becoming more healthy as a result of that, that it's got to be a plus on the win column. So we definitely, I want to speak in favor of putting that money back in. It makes all the sense in the world to do that. And I think over time, the next few years, like they did say, they can get the number of times that each person frequents the Y so that we can see, you know, how many times they're working out and that kind of thing. We wouldn't get those numbers with names attached to it, by the way, or by listening, so that we are just really trying to get sort of a bird's-eye view of how much more increased activity our employees and our employees' families are having. So I think it's a great program, and it's long overdue. And one of the things that's significant about that is that different divisions of government had different levels of subsidy with the YMCA, and what we did in that partnership was level that all out. Thank you. So this is a completely new, is that right? So that's what I asked for, the history of the... Well, several years ago we entered into this, and it was part of the expense in the Division of Human Resources as a benefit cost. And during the 15% reduction plan that the Director of Human Resources submitted, he submitted eliminating both the YMCA subsidy from his original budget as well as the flu shot. And so these represent how much we're going to be in his 2010 budget that he pulled out in order to meet the 15% reduction goal. Council Member Gordon. Just historically speaking, it used to be many years ago that before collective bargaining that police and fire would get this as a benefit and no other city employees received this as a benefit. And so the discussion at that time, and I don't remember what year that would have been, But was that we want all of our employees to be healthy, new concept. And so that's why it was added in quite a number of years ago. Council Member Beard. Council Member Beard. Yep. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, it's quite typical when we enter into these agreements that the entity, in this case YMCA discounts for a group also. So I guess what I would be interested in finding out, I guess from Michael Allen would be what the street price is and what our price is and then what our subsidy is and what's left for the employee to pay, if anything. And the second part to the question is would we do this if they joined LAC or Urban Active or one of the other health clubs? Why just the YMCA? Partial answer to your first question. There is a street price. There is an entity discounted price. And then below that is, that's where we started was that second level. And then we're paying part of that for the employee to pay the remainder. What those two levels are, I can't quote to you. I'm just curious. It probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But that's the iteration. That's what I assume so. it would be that way. Right. We started from the organizational discounted price and then subsidized from that. I do not believe we subsidized any other because we negotiated with YMCA with this program. I'm not aware of whether we've had any conversations with other health fitness places or not. Not suggesting. Obviously they all got different prices, but I'm sure they would give discounts to and do give discounts in some cases. And I wouldn't suggest that we would pay any more per person necessarily. But you know, one of the barriers to utilization is how close it is to home or how close it is to work or whatever. And to get fuller participation, get where we need to get as far as that's concerned and the reason we're doing it, it might be something to look at. And the man who can answer that is creeping up behind you right now. Council member, I never creeped in my life. He didn't hear you coming, so I assume that you were creeping. My question was, and there are several questions for the rest of the council, was if you know off the top of your head what the street price for YMCA memberships, what our discounted price is, and what we pay and what the employee ends up paying. Excuse me, Council Member, I do. The way that the YMCA sets its membership rates is three levels, three tiers. So that's adult, family, and senior, which they define as 65 and over. And then they have the high street, if you just want to belong to that group. if you want to belong strictly to Beaumont, if you want to belong strictly to North Lexington, or if you want citywide. So that's kind of how the matrix looks. The benefits that the YMCA gives larger employers is a 35 percent, and each one of those tiers has a different price. What the YMCA gives us, Council Member, is a 35% discount, standardized. So the average, for instance, for family citywide runs approximately $80 a month. what the YMCA would offer us without any subsidy would be $85 less 35%. So that would be in the $60 range, which is what we, up to the last several years, we were able to get. And then Council, I think it was two years ago, allowed us an additional $90,000 to further subsidize. The reason, the rationale, excuse me, behind that was that there were other employee groups using other monies other than the general fund dollars to subsidize the rates. And what council understood and agreed to at that time was to create parity, not to use those funds anymore, but to create parity throughout the employee organization, which was great, and we were able to do that. Now, for instance, the family charge for all with our subsidy is $25 a month. So we further subsidize that $65 by an average of like $40. So we continue to subsidize it. Did that answer the question? Currently, I apologize for not getting down here a little more promptly, but I wanted to check on the last numbers. And currently we have over 550 of our employees who are currently enrolled in the YMCA program, which is over 100% increase over the last several years. And that doesn't include the fire department. And the fire department, by contract, we supply the single membership. One other allied question, I guess, and that would be, have we ever considered doing this for any of the other health clubs as far as Urban Active or LAC or some of those? Have there been conversations? That's a great question. Yes, we have. Part of the drawback to that is that the YMCA has set up their program on a bank draft system. For the other groups that... I have that effect. The alarm system has been activated in another area of the building. While this report is being verified, please remain where you are. The alarm system has been activated in another area of the building. While this report is being verified, please remain where you are. You need to notify the further action in response. Now we'll see if the fire department can react. It's with that good Y memberships that we give them. Hopefully they will. Your attention please. Your attention please. The alarm system has been activated in another area of the building. While this report is being verified, please remain where you are. The alarm system has been activated in another area of the building. While this report is being verified, please remain where you are. You will be notified if further action is required. I just... Unless there's an objection, we'll take a recess until we determine whether or not we've got an alarm or not. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Sounds like we've recovered. so mike you want to continue regarding what the question was i know my question was i'm still at still like to hear um council member bearded out about other gyms that was julian's yeah that was mine and yes council member we have. In fact, Golds, when it was Golds, prior to becoming Urban Active, we met with Golds, looked through their program. They went back to the national to secure the best pricing they could possibly do. And they came back with a pricing structure for us. But the only way they would do it, allow the membership to receive that was by payroll deduction. And as I think you know, we have a policy on payroll deduction that requires a third of the affected population to... May I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? Your mercy in the Gov. Center is now clear. You can continue to all the duties. It requires a third of the affected population. So we'd have to get a thousand employees that said they wanted to participate in the Golds program. So they wouldn't move on that at all to do a bank draft program, so we couldn't do it. Since such time that they've dropped the Golds affiliation as a franchise, we even approached Urban Active again to see if they would be interested in doing it and have never been responded to. So, yes, we have. We have looked at other opportunities. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mike. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Any other questions for the links for Chairman Henson? No? All right. We can move on then to the next link report which would be General Government. Right? We okay now Mr. Blues? Thank you Vice Mayor. The General Government Link Report will be a report without a conclusion or a bottom line at this time. Because there were last minute changes earlier on, the spreadsheet with the final figures, the overall pluses and minuses, will be sent electronically to all Council members before the end of the day. So I hope you will be understanding of that inconclusiveness. As we go forward, I'd like to... I thought that it might be important to be able to put some faces with the names. And so for your information also should be noted that the aides to Councilmember Meyers, Joe Shuler and to Julian Beard, Willie Fogel along with my colleagues were immensely cooperative and helpful as we worked through this process. and especially special thanks to Georgetta Gill who has made all of this paper possible and has kept things together through all of these different divisions and entities. The materials you have in addition to the PowerPoint and you will find that if you work through the paper at a certain point you'll see it's been the copier mis-stapled it so you'll have to work that out but all the pages are in sequence and then there are some special supplementary materials on five units. The county attorney, the coroner's office, the CIO, government communications and the Department of Law. So we can go forward. You'll see that general government is comprised of a fairly long list, but I will try to move through all of these units as expeditiously as possible, beginning with the circuit judges. The link recommends no changes to the Mayor's proposed budget. You'll notice that there is an increase that is due to the full year funding of the social worker, which was funded for part of FY09. County Clerk's Office, there are in a sense three divisions as you see there. We also make no changes, recommend no changes to the Mayor's proposed budget. There is in the elections area a $90,000 bond project which is necessary to pay for new voting machines whenever new precincts are created and they are not created at whim but by statute, new machines must be purchased and so that $90,000 becomes part of the bond and no changes otherwise in the Mayor's proposed budget. So the same is true for the Board of Elections. The Commonwealth's Attorney Office, we do recommend one increase, a restoration of $6,000 in funds for a work study intern in the Attorney's Office. It's an excellent kind of training program and recruiting tool. It helps the office and it's a fairly minor expense and so we thought that was a worthy addition. County Judge Executive, no changes there in the Mayor's proposed budget. As I noted earlier, there are some supplementary documents relevant to the county attorney. You see here the organizational chart. The Mayor's proposed budget is unchanged from 2009. There's 100 employees in the office, 13 of them funded by us. And we recommend no changes in the budget. We do recommend some changes in the coroner's office. The Coroner's Office had asked Human Resources to do a market study to determine whether where the salaries of the coroners were on a par with other coroners throughout the area. And it was found that they tend to be on the low end of the scale. The salaries are below standard according to the market study. And so we are recommending some reclassifications for these employees. Coroners do what other employees in the same classifications simply do not do. Their jobs are more onerous, more difficult. They work under extremely trying conditions in a building that itself is not adequate to the task that they're asked to perform. So we are recommending reclassifications and a small increase, initial increase, a first step increase of $30,040 to begin rectifying the deficiencies in salaries. property valuation administrator as you know we pay the operating expenses and we recommend no changes to the mayor's proposed budget in that area council office There are two components as you know, administration of the core staff and the council districts and the at large council members with elected officials and their district. So you have a kind of organizational chart here, a description of how the Council Office Administration works. And you'll note that the Council Office Administration occupies and takes up less than 1% of the total general fund, which I think is pretty good for the job that the Council and its Administrative Office has to do. And the Mayor's proposed budget, the salaries, personnel costs for the five administrators, and 15 Council aides was, I think, $1,982,700. We, in our recommendation, saw the need to increase the salaries to pay for the 15th aid. The Mayor's budget did not include that number. So our increase does take care of all of the council aides. We also recommend a $25,000 funding of our Economic Development Task Force. And that brings us, if these recommendations are accepted, almost $96,000 over the Mayor's proposed budget. As you'll see here, this is a creative rendering of how the Council works. in case anybody ever inquires as to that issue. I think it may have to do with the one and the many, but you'll have to puzzle over that at your leisure. and a descriptive page on our functions. We do recommend some increases over the Mayor's proposed budget to bring our individual funding levels up to the 2009 levels. For example, with reference to the neighborhood development funds, $10,000 has always for each council district has always been a stretch for many of us. And to cut that is to make our services to our constituents and to our districts very difficult. So we have restored those funds. and that brings us, if you'll look forward here, to a total addition to the Mayor's proposed budget of $126,850. The Citizens' Admiquate Office has been funded at the FY09 level and we recommend that we follow the mayor's proposed budget on this. In short, we recommend no changes for the Citizens Advocate Office. The council clerk. The mayor's budget did It didn't include a reduction for operating supplies and expenditures, while at the same time the clerk's office faces an 8% increase in advertising costs this year. So also the Mayor's budget does not fund the part-time records management analyst. We are in concord with the mayor's budget except in the area of the funds needed for publication of ordinances and resolutions and other legal notices. So we restore or recommend restoring $48,000 to the Mayor's proposed budget to pay for those anticipated expenses in FY10. Now as you know the Council will consider a resolution that will enable us to not have to pass individually on expenditures, I think it's under $100,000. But the council has not taken that up, and we feel that it's important that we not anticipate here a council decision at this time. So we do recommend restoring the funding in the full $48,000, And that entails then an increase to $683,410 for the Council Clerk's Office. The Mayor's Office. We are of course in Concord with the Mayor's Office's desire to do everything faster, better, and cheaper. And we do not recommend any changes in the Mayor's Office proposed budget. and would keep that item the same. Under Special Projects in the Mayor's Office, we would note a couple of things here, just a couple of highlight items that the increase in the And the mayor's budget for the Bluegrass State Games represents the LFUCG eliminating two positions that usually work with the games and with the dollar equivalent of a position. So that explains that $30,000 difference. We also restore $4,000 to the Sisters Cities Fund, that's to restore full salary of a current employee, and we're doing that with the advice of the Mayor's Office. We do recommend a $45,000 or 10% reduction in the arts program, which would be consistent with other special project reductions. So our link recommendation for Mayor's special projects subtracts $41,000 for a final figure of $734,350. For the special events budget, we recommend no changes to the Mayor's proposal. The Office of Policy and Budget was unfunded in the FY09 budget. The Mayor proposes funding the Office of Policy and Budget for FY10, but does not recommend funding for a director of budgeting. So the link discussed the question of whether if we're not going to fund both, and it seemed reasonable in these difficult budgetary times to not do that, We discussed the choice between policy and budget and funding a director of budgeting. And we opted to fund the director of budgeting office as opposed to the office of policy and budget. We did this because we felt there is a need to restore the management structure, a hands-on directive to make sure that tasks are taken out in a timely fashion. It would be great to have to be able to fund the policy and budget office for a more comprehensive and overall vision. But we do need that hands-on manager. And so we do recommend funding the director of budgeting. Also, we recommend a funding in the area of $29,830 for economic forecasting studies, most probably with the University of Kentucky. This was a recommendation by Bill O'Mara and we thought it made excellent sense and would save us money and service well over the long haul. Internal audit. Now, for some time there have been three positions vacant in the Office of Internal Audit as you'll see in the organizational chart. The mayor has recommended funding one of those auditor positions and we concur with that recommendation. But we also believe that since the Office of Internal Audit has an extremely and increasingly important job to do, both internally and externally, that we need to make a move toward funding of the other two vacant positions. So we do recommend authorizing the hires of two additional auditors, one for 10 months, one for six months in, I'm sorry, for eight months in FY10 in an amount of $140,000. And if we, if the Council follows that recommendation, we will be adding $140,000 to the Mayor's proposed budget for the Office of Internal Audit. The Office of Chief Information Officer, I just call your attention here to the reorganization item and the note that a strategic plan report is due this month with comprehensive reorganization of computer services with possible restructuring funds for 2010. We have not received that report at this time. You will find in your in your packet the referred to partial report on technology upgrade timeline and that is there for your information. For the Chief Information Officer, we We recommend no changes in the mayor's proposed budget. Government communications. The flow chart enables you to see that the division is you know, contains now three units in one 311, public information office in GTV3. The mayor's proposed budget budget does not recommend funding the part-time clerical assistant and also the part-time camera operator. In the budget request, it's noted that, and this is on your page 51, that the abolition of the staff assistant is in progress. that LexCol is also recommending a reduction in their operating hours to 7.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. So they would begin a half hour later and close 90 minutes earlier in the evening. They have recommended this because they have found that their heaviest inflow of calls is in the intervening hours, and they can run a much more efficient operation with the employees that they do have by revising their operating hours accordingly. The Mayor's proposed budget also provides no funding for the Lexington store which as you know has already been closed. On page 5052, you'll see that the correction on the let's call position is noted there. and our recommendation for the offices. Funding is otherwise consistent with the Mayor's proposed budget. This is an informational item on page 53, the various let's call changes that are in the works. Computer Services. See here a kind of an organizational chart that shows the various entities in the Computer Services Division, as well as the organizational chart and the supplementary documents, as you know, are also available. Computer services, the recommendation for creation of a new division, the Enterprise Business Solutions Division, which will involve a cost of $188,000 plus. We make no recommendation on that at this time, and will not do so until very soon after the June 3rd committee, the whole presentation on the, you know, that will bring us more details, more information on this proposal. The next page gives you some highlight items on what's involved in the bond fund projects for the division with the telephone system, computer equipment, software, the network components. So we will be revisiting computer services once we have been able to have heard and Computer Services once we have been able to have heard the June 3rd report. Senior Advisor, we recommend no changes to the Mayor's proposed budget. Or do we find reason to change the Mayor's proposed budget for the Office of Economic Development? Risk management. And no changes seem to be in order there and we recommend none. There has been some reorganization in the Department of Law. of Law, the reclassifying of the Deputy Commissioner position to a Director position, which the The law department does not intend to fill in FY10. We make no recommendations for changes in the Mayor's proposed budget. We do make a subtraction or correction on line 77802, subscriptions and publication, a reduction of $30,000. That is our report. We'll certainly be available to take your questions. All right. Councilmember Crosby. Councilmember Crosby. Thank you, Dr. Bluse. That was a very thorough presentation from your committee. And I know we all appreciate it, all the detail. I have a few questions. The first is regarding the money, the $25,000 that you all put into the Economic Development Task Force from the Council. Can anybody, I don't know if you all can answer this or if maybe the Vice Mayor, since he kind of was in charge of it this past year, how much money, I think we had $50,000 and not including what we put toward, I think we put some money towards it for something else. But can you all tell me how much we spent out of that for this past year? This past year, I think we've spent all but maybe a couple of thousand. We've spent the vast bulk of it, as you know, for the necessary fee to the independent analyst of the distillery district, TIF. That was $47,000. So, so. And then we wait. Okay. You want the whole number. And we also spent, I don't know, maybe a thousand dollars or so. Because two of our council members went to Greenville, South Carolina. We were on an economic development trip. So we spent pretty close to the full amount. That was my point, is how much outside of what we did for the TIF did we, to help out on the distillery district TIF, we spent maybe $3,000 or a couple thousand? Yeah, at the most. At the most. So how do we come up with $25,000 for the next year? So we've cut it in half, anticipating we won't be covering special TIF projects, I guess. So we've cut it in half from this past year because we knew we didn't spend $50,000 on. I have to confess that that was something of an arbitrary decision. It comes out of council administrator budget, And we felt that since across government, most administrative units were reducing their costs, that we ought to do the same. So it was not a calculation based on anything more than that. Okay. I guess I appreciate the fact that we're trying to do something because obviously this is probably one of the most crucial things we can be doing right now. but after a year of having $50,000 in an account that we could have been, should have been doing something that we spent $3,000 outside of the distillery district, and that was for a few council members to travel to Greenville, South Carolina. I mean, we had almost $50,000 to work with. I guess my question is what makes us think we're going to use $25,000? The speakers that we were using were not requiring honorarium. I guess I'm just struggling in this financial atmosphere on when we didn't even spend truly $3,000 in one year, when we allocated $50,000 on true – does that make sense? No, I think that's a legitimate question, and one that would be well worth revisiting in, you know, when we get down to business. Yeah, because I mean I'm talking because this should be our top priority, but yet I'm not sure that, I guess where I see us struggling is how are we able to do this, where I see we clearly didn't establish a very good pattern in the past year of being able to do this. I guess we'll debate that later. My second question relates to the coroner's office, and I was just wondering if anybody knows the – and this may be for Michael Allen, if he's still here, if you know what the retention level for their employees are. not literally council member but I know that we have only replaced one position last year thank you that's all I have thank you other questions council member Martin Thank you, Vice Mayor. Dr. Lewis, I've got a question about the elimination of $45,000 from the arts program. Is this the LFUCG's funding of LexArts? Yes. I guess my concern is that, you know, these, in times of economic troubles, A lot of these organizations provide, I think, a much-needed distraction to some of our citizens' economic difficulties, similar to our commitment to keep parks funded during these times. Many of these organizations are experiencing decreased donations, as it is, due to the economy. And my concern is that the elimination of $45,000 from our LexArts support will mean that some of these organizations won't be funded. And many of them are sort of run on a shoestring anyway. These are very, you know, very, very lean organizations. And that probably as a result, one or more of them may close their doors. and I'd hate to lose some of our organizations during these times. So I guess I'm particularly concerned that the $25,000 seems to be taken out of the LexArts budget and put into the council's economic development budget, which does not currently have an identified use and clearly would be coming out of LexArts budget. So I have some concerns about that. I think that we would be losing some of our organizations, and I can't tell you how lean these organizations are. It would be a really substantial impact on the number of groups. So I'd be very concerned about that. We, and I appreciate that concern. It's certainly a legitimate one, and one will want to, and I'm sure we will discuss this as we go toward finalizing the budget. But we predicated our recommendation on consistency. And since all the other special projects are being cut similarly, about 10%, we said, well, let's be consistent here as well. because you can make the same argument about other organizations as well. So I see your point, and it's doubtless one that we will want to discuss. But that was our rationale for bringing that budget item into line with the other recommendations. Thank you. Council Member Martin, and this might be particularly or especially worthwhile for council members who were appointed or elected more recently. The protocol on debate, on actual examination of some of the recommendations has been to do that at a little bit later time. Jerry, you might want to remind us of our typical procedure, or I'd say procedure. And it's not that, what, your question is entirely appropriate. And help, I was just asking Jerry to remind me. So I think it'd be worthwhile for him to share with everyone how we might go about this. Historically, what we've done to keep the process moving, and you can get buried in questions that lead to other discussions, But at this point, as the links are reporting out, if you could keep your questions to an understanding of what the issue is and get a definition and to elaborate on that. But after all the council links reports out, I'll put together a master list of all the recommendations that council will vote either up or down. And it's at that point you can delve more into issues, just what some of the council members have been talking about. They're good questions. They're questions that need answers. But you would serve yourself, I think, a little better to keep the process moving because we've got a tight schedule until we have to wrap this up or final vote. Any questions on that? I will if you will. Yeah. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. This is a question for the link. Thank you, Jerry. So, Council Member Blues, just one more little piece to the arts program. So do I understand that in the discussions of the link for this recommendation that the main focus was to create an across-the-board kind of look? It had nothing to do with individual programs. That's correct. Okay. And then I had a question on the coroner's office. Yes. You, your link recommended, and I don't know that I can find it here real quickly, but I think I recall that you recommended reclassifying the employees in the coroner's office based on the market study. and that was, I guess I wondered if there was any discussion in the link about the fact that I believe the market study was for the entire government. And is that not, no, this was just, because I know other part of our link had a market study done and this will come out later, but were you, I'm trying to think how to phrase this. Were you looking at the reclassification as an isolated incident or what was the discussion surrounding that? Yes, it was strictly in terms of the market study for the coroner's office itself. It didn't touch on other... So you didn't talk about the other market studies and whether they would be recommended to be reclassified or not. Okay, thank you. If I might insert something here, they had a strange, they had two titles that sounded like the same position. One was like deputy coroner and the other was assistant coroner and we were trying to get some parity there as to who actually which job and that's why the difference in the reclassification. Actually, nobody is actually moving. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think my questions really had to do with some of the recommendations, so I can hold those off until another time. but also would add that there is an increase in the council clerk's office recommended and I know that one of the things that one of our committees is doing is to restructure some of those job tasks so that might address some of the needs that they have for an additional part-time person. Any other questions or comments for Council Member Blues? If not, we can move on then to the LINCS report. Next is on the agenda is public works, environmental quality. Outside agencies. Okay, I will start. I didn't have the fancy picture, so I just, that's a picture of our link. Yeah, quite a depiction. Well, your budget must have been less than our link's budget. Yeah, it was. Yeah, Sarah's passing out our link report. Many thanks to Vice Mayor and Council Member Gorton and all of our staff that helped, as well as the commissioners, directors, and everyone that helped. This was truly a collaborative effort to do the budget link. It's a very involved process, which I'm thankful that it's involved because the budget link is our guiding document for the rest of the year and beyond. And the packet that you have in front of you is a slight modified form that we were handed out with some additional information as needed. So I'll just go at it here. Our link covered the Public Works Division as well as the Environmental Quality. First being Commissioner's Office for Public Works. Just some highlights from here. There are 23,500 that comes from the Urban Services Fund that goes towards this division. The only addition that council had or committee that Link had was the large animal removal. In the past, there's been a grant from the state that took care of, I believe that the grant in the past allowed for large dead animals to actually be picked up off personal property. What we are in need of is the money that it would take to properly dispose of the animals that are picked up out of the streets, mostly in the rural areas, in like the 12th district areas. That money was not included. And there is a special, the FDA has a special requirement for removal of the brain and spinal cord. of animals that are picked up. So in order to properly dispose of them, we have to contract out to people that specialize in this. So that cost estimate is there, and the LINCS is recommending putting that line item in. We believe we are going to, we talk with budgeting, and they're going to actually get an actual line item so that we can identify that now and in the future. the next was the division of building inspection the links had no no change from the mayor's proposed budget the next was division of PDR PDR does work with one employee only we all know Mr. Van Pelt I'm sure some highlights here is noted or on your sheet is noted that there was an additional grant opportunity that came about for an additional $1 million one-to-one match. We thought the deadline was May the 15th, which was about two days after our LINC meeting. So we were afraid that we had missed that, and we have since found out that we have not submitted that, but the money is still available. During our link discussion, we did recommend that the mayor's office submit this item as a late item if they were so interested. So we did not necessarily recommend, we did not include the $1 million bond, but we do recommend that the administration look at including this as a late item since there's new information provided. it next was the division of planning something special to note here is we have four vacancies in the division of planning and three of the three of those are within the strategic planning area of planning we do the link does recommend that the council resolve to hire for the senior planning position. That senior planning position was vacated in January, and we do believe that we need to have that person hired. That money is in the budget. However, in order to ensure that that position is filled, the LINC is recommending that we do a resolution to ask that this position be filled and approved by the mayor. Because of some, just some highlights, because of the temporary suspension of strategic planning due to lack of, due to the vacancies in that area, the lack of hiring of a manager, and because of the hiring freeze, those folks have been distributed throughout the planning division, and their duties have been changed a bit. And so the link did understand that strategic planning is a very important facet of our planning department. And we're looking to hire that senior planner position, which will be in that strategic planning and be able to be on our way to restoring the strategic planning area. Also, please note that the MPO is 80% federal funded and 5% state fund it. We just thought that you would want to know that it's not completely general fund in the planning. Other than that, the link has no changes to the mayor's proposed budget. Historic preservation, just a couple of highlights. No funds are included for historic preservation week, if that's of interest to you or your constituents. Neither in the mayor's proposed budget, nor did the link include that. They are doing some pretty creative things with flexing of schedules to eliminate overtime. We thought that was a pattern that maybe others, if able, would be able to duplicate. And there's the signage that if you've ever driven through an historic neighborhood and have seen the green signage, they don't have any funds to replace or repair any damaged signs. So just kind of They're keeping their fingers and toes crossed right now that those won't be graffiti too badly or broken up or run over. But they are hoping that they can deal with the budget cuts this year, but do feel as if they'll need some attention in the FY11 budget. In addition that the link made, mileage reimbursement was not occurring in this division. The employees had not asked for any mileage reimbursement. They've been driving their own vehicles. And historic preservation is one of the areas where you can be all over the place. We've got historic districts all over Lexington. And they weren't aware of this. They were recently made aware of it. It was not included in the budget, and the link recommended an addition of $2,000 for mileage reimbursement. There are also a recent – I talked to Commissioner Webb very recently before I came down, and he said that there may be a car, a vehicle for use, but that has not worked out at this point. So at this point, we will continue our recommendation for the $2,000 for mileage reimbursement. The next area is traffic engineering. Some highlights from this division. They utilize several different funds, both the 1141, 1115, and 1136, as well as numerous grants. The council, the link does recommend that council hire, a resolve to hire the two traffic signal tech seniors in the FY 2010. It is funded. I believe it's funded for FY09 as well, but we need to get those positions approved and get those folks in place. Some additions that the link has as well. There was a, similar to the coroner's office, there was a market study analysis done by our human resources department. And the result of that showed that reallocation was needed for some of the traffic signal tech senior positions. The link is recommending that we look at the reallocation of those 10 traffic signal senior positions, and I believe four of which are vacant at this moment. So it's really only funding for six. So it would be the reallocation for six positions, and that's the total of $35,846. The link also noted that in the mayor's proposed budget, there was no funding for the traffic management program, and the link thought that that was an important program for our city, for all of our neighborhoods, and where there was nothing in there at all, we recommended $20,000 to hopefully be able to help three, four, maybe five neighborhoods with speed bumps or signage, things that we constantly get requested and traffic engineering is constantly requested of, so we added that $20,000. So making that total link recommendation of an additional $55,847. Behind that traffic engineering sheet, you will see the market study analysis that was sent from Wally Barker to the Department of Public Works back in August 2008. beyond that you will see the letter from Commissioner Kelly at that time with approval from vice from the mayor as well as a letter from Commissioner Coe at that time asking HR to proceed with the hiring for those positions so we are asking that those six be granted. Let's see. The next one is streets and roads and forestry and public works. Some highlights from this area are there were no funds included for hazardous tree abatement. Forestry itself was actually cut 89% in the mayor's proposed budget. There are, oh, the stormwater construction and maintenance costs have been moved from the stormwater fund. So 16 positions that had previously been funded by, let me get the wording right here. Positions that have previously been funded by the general fund, I'm sorry, by the urban services fund have actually moved to the water quality. So they will actually be included in the storm water quality fee and fund. So those will be, they will move as far as funding is concerned, but they will stay in place as far as where their positions are and to whom they answer. If I'm saying that wrong, please, my colleagues, please help me out here. There's also additional funding that is utilized for streets, roads, and forestry. The 1115, the 1136, and not included on this is actually, is also the 1139, which is the coal, the coal fund. And so any roads on which coal is transported, there's a move-in of those funds of $185,000 that's utilized as well in streets, roads, and forestry. Other than some discussion that we had in our link regarding the role of forestry and streets and roads and maybe how we could utilize some of the street, the forestry programs to benefit our environmental quality, environmental policy. And that is going to be an ongoing discussion going on with Commissioner Webb, with Susan Bush and Commissioner Taylor, as well as the tree board will be included in that conversation. We're looking for some good ways to be sure that we highlight those programs, maintain our trees and our tree canopy, and understand the value of trees to our water quality. Other than that, there were no changes to the mayor's proposed budget. The next is engineering. Engineering has personnel budgets that are also allocated in sanitary sewer, stormwater, municipal aid, and right-of-way funds. And you'll see those listed there. It's a mistake, that third line down about the 185 from Fund 1139 is the one I just mentioned for streets and roads. So that mistakenly is on this sheet. There were no changes to the mayor's proposed budget in engineering. There were also no changes to the mayor's proposed budget in the Commissioner's Office of Environmental Quality. You will note that the entire department is funded by funds other than the general fund, and those are listed there for you. Environmental policy. Again, this is their very first budget. They are entirely funded outside of the general fund. Again, there is noted about the urban forestry conversations that they will be having and we'll be looking forward to finding some ways that programming can take place there. There is one vacancy currently in environmental policy. Water quality is the next. Let's see. The division is funded by funds other than the general fund. All of those are listed there. The link had no changes to the mayor's proposed budget. Waste management is another. Something to note there, there's 54 vacancies in waste management. 54 vacancies. The division is funded completely by funds other than general fund dollars. The last page, next to last page in your packet, is just a summary of the additions or changes, which were all additions. $105,846.88, and an opportunity for bond with PDR for a million if we're interested in doing that. The last sheet before we open to questions is just a general list of recommendations from the link. As you can imagine with the three of us that were on the link, we had a lot of process and history and future, as I'm sure you did as well and we try to think of ways to improve the process moving forward and some things that came up is at some point we'll be bringing forward a motion to place the issue of nepotism into the intergovernmental committee for discussion we saw some areas on some org charts where some nepotism may have come into play and we'd like to get that discussion out in the open we would also like to request for a presentation to the council regarding the Urban Services Fund. The Urban Services Fund is known well to many and known not so well to others, and we'd like to know what the plans are. We know that Connie Underwood with Budgeting is working with the commissioner and the director of waste management to talk about what's going on and what the needs are, expenditures are, and re-orging and all that sort of thing. So we're interested in hearing about the Urban Services Fund and getting that information out there and sharing it with all, which I think many of you would say it's much needed and long time coming. And I think Commissioner Taylor is ready for that. And we also, it's very interesting that we, as we went through the budget, we were trying to figure out what was required by ordinance or by law to be included in the budget. And instead of, we thought it might be good in advance of next year's budget to go ahead and get that all lined out. So as the budget is prepared, we have that data with us, and we know we're not scrambling at the end to try to squeeze something in. If we're legally bound to do that, it can be included up front. So, Vice Mayor, I'll open to questions now and allow anyone else to join in to give responses. Okay. Thank you, Council Member James. Council Member Crosby. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member James. Did anybody tell you why forestry, their operating was cut by 89 percent? We did have some discussions about that, and it was seen that those were the programs that forestry offered. It was really for the programming, abatement, tree, cost share, and things like that. Those were felt as if they weren't critical at this point and could be delayed a year, that they could take a year and it wouldn't have a negative impact. Okay. And then regarding the positions where you said that they were funded in FY09 budget and that you would come forward with a resolution saying that maybe we should get those positions filled, do you know if they have people who are ready to go into those positions? Have they gone through the process of finding people? Or are we? No, it would be they would have to start human resources square one advertising. and that was one of the things I forgot to mention is that they had advertised before and not gotten any responses or responses that they needed, adequate perspective or people to work, what do you call those? Possibles, yeah. So they are potential employees. So we've actually suggested at our link today, and Commissioner Webb agreed that we could have those folks re-advertise, and maybe because of the economic climate, then maybe we would get some better responses or more responses. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett and Blues and Myers. Thank you, Chair. Council Member James, I assume you are supporting all the bonded and capital projects that the mayor proposed? Yes. So there was no changes on those? No, there was no changes. Okay. And then on the traffic management piece, the $35,000, does that include the FICA and the pensions and all those other contributions, or is that just a salary number to increase their salary only? I believe that's benefits if someone could speak. Because the way the memo read didn't read in there, so that's why I didn't know. Sure. If someone want to come speak, I believe it's inclusive of all, but let's get them to come forward. The traffic engineering position or market adjustment. I feel good, you know, talking for another division for a change. No, I think Mike's staff has included that. So I think we're safe in saying that those benefits are part of that total cost. Thank you. So that does include benefits. And then the last thing, I know a couple other council members had just asked about the neighborhood traffic management. Yes. again for those new council members we used to fund this program we haven't in quite a while a lot of us do it through our own maybe NDF to a neighborhood to help support speed humps and things but I'm glad to see you all do that because it's a much needed program to be funded yeah we debated between we thought we'd start at maybe $10,000 and we know from traffic engineering if you're going to do anything $30,000 is about the place to start so we got as close to it as we could good report thank you Thanks. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member James, thank you for that very thorough report. I wanted to go back to PDR for just a second. According to your recommendations, your Lynx recommendation, what will PDR have if your recommendations are followed for actual purchase of easements? For purchase of easements? Yeah, the development rights. Someone may have to, is Billy here? I'm sorry, Council Member Blues, I don't have it separated in my mind, so I don't, and I don't have it on paper either. Well, I just asked because I think that's the essence of the office. With Council Member James' recommendation, the proposed budget from the mayor was for $2 million, and with the extra million, it would be a total of $3 million. Actually. Well, $3 million local to match with $3 million from the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program for a total of $6 million. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Well, just to correct a little bit, our recommendation was for the mayor, the administration, to bring as a late item the million. So I just wanted to clarify that the link itself did not include a million dollars for bonding. However, we are recommending that the administration bring that forward as a late item because the grant was just now realized. And do we have, what would be our deadline on that if we did it? Well, the deadline has been extended because we did find out very late that there were additional funds available. So we don't have a firm deadline now. Our local contact is evaluating all the material that I've submitted to her so far. But I've explained to her that we brought this up during our council link meeting, and she's going to give us ample opportunity to provide more information to use those funds. Good. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Thank you, Council Member James. Excuse me. Council Member Byers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was going to ask, I think you've already sort of been asked this question already, but does the link have a recommendation, a policy recommendation with respect to those 50-something employees that have not been hired? Is the link going to... Oh, for waste management? Yes. The link does not have a specific recommendation. However, we do have a recommendation to have commissioner or someone related or affiliated with waste management to do some type of presentation to let council know what's going on, what's the holistic idea. Okay. My other question centers around, we had a presentation done a couple weeks ago by Mr. O'Mara, and it had capital projects, had different bond projects, I think listed, and I don't have that document. I apologize for not having it down here, but I believe there was a million and a half dollars listed in there for office renovations. Yes. For solid waste. Did they give you any understanding of what that's for and why they need that? Commissioner Taylor, did you want to come speak on that? I'll have her describe that. Thank you. That was an estimate for what we think it will cost to bring the building to the level that we need to add, the staff that we need to add. Part of the 54 vacancies is folks on the trucks, and some of the other vacancies are people in professional roles like HR, budget, materials marketing, and that sort of thing. The building when I got here that we have today is in pretty bad shape. The HVAC system is out, those kinds of things. And so we had planned on trying to update and renovate that building to add the offices and the infrastructure that we need to have that functioning over the next decade. So that's what it's for. But it's a pretty preliminary number, just a guess, really. Okay. Would you have time to, when you come before, I guess the full council can make your presentation on what the sort of master plan is for that division and whether you need to hire all 56 or 54? Can you? I don't think we need to hire that many, frankly, at this point. But, yes, what we plan to do, and I recognize whenever I come forward and ask for different pieces of funding for projects, it's very difficult to fit that into one big picture and understand why this now and why that later. And so I had put together sort of a draft presentation for you. We also have on June the 9th, we're going to bring GBB back in. and that's the group that did the waste stream study for us, and come back and report on the waste stream study, report on potential marketability of recycling materials, and help folks understand why we think the site on Old Frankfurt Pike is best. So there are related issues, a little bit different focus, but we can do that in two sessions or one or whatever you would prefer. Okay. Because I understand there's a lot going on. We have a lot of opportunity there, And the decisions that we make will directly impact the number of people that are going to be required. For example, if we decide we want to market our own materials, then we'll have to have some support staff in place to do that. Okay. Well, you don't have to report now. Whenever you put that report together, if you could include that in that, though, that would be fantastic. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner, before you leave, in your report, can you be sure to show the connection between the dollar amount for temporary, to have temporary staff there versus permanent staff, and then the work that's created by whomever, whether it's the temporary staff or the permanent staff, so the kind of revenue that's generated from either or. So the fact that we're utilizing jail labor and then if we don't have the folks there, then you can't build based on temporary labor sort of thing. Well, and that's a good time to do that because the scenario, for example, if we decide to change the equipment and increase capacity, then our need for people drops down significantly by nine people, nine or ten people. Okay. So that would impact the number of temporaries we would need long term. And we can talk about the costs. Okay. Either way. And we'll work on a date for presentations. Okay. All right. Thanks. Councilman Martin, just so we're aware of our timing here, is my oversight not to give outside agencies its report out. Councilman Meyer says he can do that in five minutes, which is about what we've got. Councilman Martin, you got a quick question for the – are you sure? Okay. All right. All right. Okay. Council Member Myers. Thank you Mr. Martin for yielding so we can get this in. Real quickly, I might take a little more time than we have, but I can get it done in five minutes. Our committee met a little bit of history. The last several years, probably four or five years, we've been working to get this committee to actually be an oversight committee rather than what we started out being. And that was a committee that actually reviewed each one of the requests from outside agencies. And we're making really good headway with this administration to do that. So, looking at the list of the mayor's recommended spending for outside agencies, our committee felt like everything was in order and we were in agreement with everything, with the exception of two agencies that we want to separate out because we've asked for more and additional information from, it's not that we have a problem with them yet or anything, but we had additional information that we requested and haven't gotten that yet. And so we're going to meet this week or maybe next Tuesday morning and be able to report that out at next Tuesday's Committee of the Whole. Those two agencies are Downtown Development Agency, DDA, and then Commerce Lexington. So apart from Commerce Lexington and DDA, the committee voted unanimously to accept or adopt the mayor's proposed spending for outside agencies. And then to wrap, let me finish a couple more things. We've got one recommendation that we made. A motion was made to modify the agencies that we have three agencies that their employees are included in our health care plan, but they actually are eligible for CURS, the Kentucky Employee Retirement Systems Plan. And so in working with the administration, we got the numbers on what the budget impact of that is to our government, to the employees of LFECG who are subsidizing that, and then also the taxpayers that are subsidizing that. And we voted unanimously, and the administration concurs, and we've worked with those three agencies as well to have them moved over to the Kentucky employee retirement system as of January 1. And so they'll stay on our plan until January 1, and then they'll kind of phase out. And then so that was a motion that was made and adopted. And then secondly, to finish out that, we didn't have enough time to completely look at this situation and vote on it. But because we're going to move those three agencies off, then we need to move the rest of the agencies that are outside agencies that are involved in our health care for a number of reasons, which I can get into later. And so I would like to go ahead and make the motion to, and working with the administration, we've come up with a date. and that date would be July 1 of 2010, that we would move all the other partner agencies that are involved in our health care off of our health care and onto their own health care plan. Council Member Gordon. Well, there's a motion and a second. Is that? And then we're. So discussion now. Okay. So just to clarify your motion, are you, you're moving this to go to the full council for acceptance, or are you moving to put this on as one of the recommendations that's discussed with everything else at our next cap? Seeing that we have quite a few, well, we don't have that many seats open. We could do it either way. It's, when we give you more detail on it, it's something that's going to have to be done. So we can put it as a recommendation to be taken up by the full council. and get you the background information if you want to do it that way, that's fine. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? We've got a motion in a second, then we're ready for the vote. All in favor, why don't you state, can you state the motion again, George? Please, sir. Council Member Myers. Okay. I guess we'll do it so that the full council will vote on it again when we have more vetting to it. So I move to recommend to the full council for discussion at a later time. the moving of all partner agencies that are on our health care system, that the employees are not employees of the government, to their own health care plan. And the date for that to happen would be July 1, 2010. So moved. So there is a motion and a second? Except for the three. The other three will go January 1 of 2010. So the motion is? Oh, okay, those three. Well, okay, she asked me to repeat those three. Those three are the Health Department, the Housing Authority, and the Commonwealth Attorney. County Attorney, I'm sorry. Vicki, are you clear on the motion? Okay. Are all council members clear on the motion? The motion is to move it to the full council for discussion. Correct. Okay. So all in favor of the motion, please say yes or aye. Aye. All opposed? No. motion carries.