Let's go ahead and call the meeting, "Gorder," if we might. And, um, in a bit of a departure from the norm, I am, uh, going to turn the microphone over to Council Member Jay McCord, who has, uh, a special guest with us here today that he'd like to introduce. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Just, uh, i- if my colleagues will indulge me, um, for the last four years, uh, I've had a, a great relationship with a, a gentleman that is a council colleague in L- in Louisville, Kentucky, Council Member Robin Engle, who is a council member in the 22nd District, uh, kinda the Fern Creek area of Louisville. And, uh, about four years ago, we found that there was a lot of commonality between the two of us and a lot of commonality with, um, issues in our city. And that Louisville and Lexington just didn't get a real chance to talk and, and, uh, work together. And so a number of years ago, we started trying to put the councils together and, and uh, we formed the first joint meeting of the Lo- two councils, uh, out at the Horse Park, uh, to discuss a number of things, primarily the World Equestrian Games and what does it mean to Louisville, what it means to Lexington. And then Council Member Engle, a year later, uh, put together a, uh, a joint meeting that some of us a- attended at the Louisville Zoo, uh, to continue that discussion. And a number of things came out of that, uh, from, uh, how can we partner our, our economic development opportunities? How can we lobby Frankfurt together, uh, since we are the, uh, the urban centers that seem to be driving the economy for the state? And so Robin was in this, uh, today and, and we've been, uh, working together on a couple of other things. And I just ask, if it's okay with you all, if he doesn't mind bringing tidings from Louisville and just, uh, uh, Robin, if you don't mind, uh, coming to the mic and letting us know what's happening in Louisville, but also what some of the opportunities are. And I know one in particular that we will certainly take advantage of is this joint trip with the Chamber that's coming up, uh, next year to Pittsburgh. It's the first time that Louisville and Lexington will ever travel together, but Robin, we wanna welcome you to Lexington. Uh, thank you, Councilme- Council Member McCord. Uh, Mr. Mayor, fellow council members, it is indeed an honor to make the journey from Louisville, uh, to the great city of Lexington. There are many great things that are going on in this community. And certainly, I couldn't help but miss in- miss the, I believe I have this correct, 402 days, uh, to- for the World Equestrian Games. Is that, uh, is that correct? I saw it on the bank, I believe so. Uh, anyway, that is a big event. Uh, and Councilman McCord, uh, of course, we just got off the, uh, the Ryder Cup event that, uh, we showcased to the world. And the goal of Council McCord, McCord and I, as we set out as council members from two great urban areas, is that we have to find th- things that we agree on more than we perhaps might disagree on. And I believe we need to, uh, to come together in many of these economic development initiatives and work together for the common good of City of Lexington and the City of Louisville. And there's no question that the World Equestrian Games is a huge event that's gonna showcase this great city of Lexington and this great community to the world. And the City of Louisville must be a very important partner to make that happen and to assist you in making that happen. I know another, uh, thing that sorta has been, uh, been discussed and that is a downtown arena. Uh, I must tell you that when it comes to working through the General Assembly, one of the- the key opportunities that we had as we looked up to- to build th- the Downtown Louisville Arena, is that we needed to work in a very bipartisan effort with fellow council members from Louisville. And so, the Democrats and Republicans, and the mayor, and the senator, and th- uh, th- uh, co- uh, various representatives came together and said, "We need to go to the General Assembly together, as one united front, in order to make this happen." We did that few years ago, and the General Assembly could not believe, before their very eyes, that there were actual people, that the actual Democrats and Republicans in the City of Louisville actually agreed on anything, and they came to the General Assembly to ask for their support to talk about this great economic development initiat- initiative called the Downtown Arena. I think we learned, I think I learned a valuable lesson from that, that I can bring that to you today. I believe if we're talking about the extension of the Newtown Pike, uh, uh, and- and w- with regard to anywhere in the City of Lexington, uh, whether it be around the Horse Park or to- to Nicholasville Road, we may not be for it, we may not be against it, but if it is in the best interest of Lexington that we need General Assembly support for Newtown Pike, I believe it is in the best interest of Louisville, if that's what you decide, we need to go to Frankfort as a united front. Because the extension of Newtown Pike, if it is good for Lexington, it is truly good for the rest of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. And we would love to assist you in going to- to Frankfort to lobby for that particular, uh, initiative. What is the other big initiative that is going on that we, actually Councilman McCord and I have been talking together? It's the Second Sunday event coming up in October. Now, I, uh, Councilman McCord has come to Louisville often, uh, lately, um, and subtly has ridiculed, uh, the City of Louisville for not participating in the 2008 Second Sunday event. Uh, and I take full responsibility for that, fellow council members, and I've told him that. However, I'm also gonna try to take full responsibility this year in the competition that I've charged McC- uh, Councilman McCord, that I believe the City of Louisville is now getting fired up to challenge the City of Lexington for the number of participants that will come out on Second Sunday. So, in conclusion, there's lots to talk about. You have a busy agenda. Uh, but- but what I wanted to talk really and conclude on is this. I believe it's a new day in Louisville. I believe it's a new day in the State of Kentucky because what I believe at the end of the day is, after we get off the football field at Commonwealth Stadium, or Papa John's, or we get off... uh, we get u- we get out of- of Rupp Arena or Freedom Hall, after that great competitive event, that at the end of the day, after those sporting events, that is where we come together and we work for the good of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Because we are the two urban areas that create a tremendous amount of jobs for our great citizens. And so, I would just, uh, want to just say thank you very much for the opportunity to speak before you folks today. I know you have a heavy agenda. And, uh, anything that I can do as a council member in Louisville, uh, I know that 20, approximately, what, 25 years ago, uh, you really got this whole idea of merged government going and you set the stage for Louisville. We are very, very proud to say that we're- we are a merged government on the move. We followed your lead with merged government and we're gonna continue to try to do the best we can. We've only been in this thing for six years, but thank you for your leadership. And I, uh, Council Member District 1, is that a Green Bay Packer, uh, jer- uh, jersey of some sort? Thank you. Uh, in the in- in- ... uh, i- Is it right here? L- let me just say, in the interest of full disclosure, it just seems that whenever I sit and talk to- to folks, within first 30 seconds, they say, "You aren't from Kentucky, are you?" Uh, I grew up in the State of Wisconsin and a die-hard Packer fan. Uh, and I moved to Louisville in 1986 and married a Kentucky girl from Owensboro, Kentucky. And I love this... uh, I love District 3, uh, I love the State of Kentucky. And thank you all for your time and I- I wish you all the best in your work in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you. Well, Council Member Engel, from one Packer fan here to another, um, thanks very much for being with us today. It slipped my... I have to say this. I cannot... um, I apologize. But with regard to the Second Sunday event, the cooperative extension has been incredible. Uh, had they... they have led us in our big group meetings that we started in January and February and I can't help but, uh, thank the, uh, uh, UK Cooperative Extension for their support. Thank you very much you all. Thank you. All right. We'll return to the agenda. Is there anyone here who wishes to address the council on matters that are on the agenda today? Seeing none, we'll proceed. We do not have a docket to approve today, but we do have a summary. Is there a motion to approve? Move. Second. Have a motion by Council Member B-, uh, Blues and a second by Council Member Crosby to approve the summary. Any discussion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to... uh, I- I think this needs to be amended to reflect that I recuse myself from all item, all votes on item DD and I think the r- record will r- reflect that. It's not really indicated in- in each of the references to this item in here. Thank you, Mayor. All right. If there's no objection, we will note your recusal on item DD, as in David? DD. All right. Um, any further additions or corrections? Then those in favor of approving the, uh, summary as amended, please indicate by saying, "Aye." Aye. Oppose, no. Motion carries. We have no, uh, budget amendments. We do have some new business items. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Stennet, second by Council Member Ellinger to approve the new business items. Is there any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on item C, related to the Home Investment, Investment Partnerships Program and wondered, um, if Paula or, um, Bill could let me know if there's a public hearing required. There is none. So right, this first and second, the first and second reading will be the only time that any folks, if they have any questions, concerns, comments to offer to coun- they would offer that to council or should they call you? Whichever way you prefer, but if they have a comment, we can take the comments. Okay. But there's not really a process to- No, it's not required. ... identify any... Okay. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, A and B, it looks like, um, uh, when Joe Kelly's coming up. I've had numerous emails, as I'm sure the other council members have, on this one from employees, because they're concerned about such a great increase in employment, um, and their salary when they're only receiving a 1%. And could you explain the process that goes in this and why this comes before us if it's over 10%, I think? Yeah. That, that is correct. Uh, the process was that, uh, the jobs were posted and these individuals were among the candidates. They were recommended in the top five, interviewed, and were selected as the number one, um, person for the job. Um, because it was internal, there's that 10% limit, but the council could approve a greater, uh, salary than the 10% if, uh, if we recommended that. I felt very strongly that the, uh, commissioner's arguments relative to providing a greater than 10%, um, um, salary was appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I actually don't have a specific question about A and B. However, since A and B have come to us as new business items, um, this brings to mind an issue that I've been discussing with Joe Kelly, which was brought to me by some of our employees, and that is the inversions and the fact that... A- and I think it's somewhat related, um, the fact that we have people who were inverted in their salaries two years ago, and they have been on a waiting list to be funded for their inversion pay. And this is by ordinance that we are supposed to be paying our employees if they get inverted by a new employee who's hired in. And I have appreciated your input, Joe, but now that I see this, these two items come forward, I think it's time that the council hear a formal presentation on the inversions and, um, how many employees are on the list who have not been paid properly and how much the cost will be. Um, I think it's directly related to each employee we bring forward, such as items A and B for salary increases, and it's also directly related to any new hires that we have, because we have a list of folks who are not new hires who've been waiting for this pay. So my thinking is to perhaps have a presentation from HR next, uh, at the next council work session, or if you can give some input today and then- Sure. ... we could have a presentation. Yes. And, and we would like to speak to the council about the inversion process. Um, w- we have some concerns a- about, about that process. I can speak to these that you were, that you're talking about that, um, were a result of, uh, a reac- um, reclassification, I suppose, um, a couple of years ago. The budgets were, when that occurred, which I believe it was '07, if I'm not mistaken, the budgets were put together, approved to take care of the inversion that was created by the reclassification, but for some reason unbeknownst to, to anyone, they didn't get processed. The inversions did not get processed in that budget year, so the budgets lapsed. Nothing was done in that budget year. They were not re-budgeted by the appropriate departments in the next budget, so there wasn't any budget in place to take care of it. So what we have proposed to do, and have communicated, uh, to, uh, Human Resources is that... ... once we get the year-end numbers for '09 that we would take, um, if there is a, a, some extra money from '09, that we take that money, which now the total is somewhere in the 180, $200,000 range. I have not gotten a, a recent number, um, in the last month or so. But it's in that ballpark number, and that would be the number one thing that we would address, uh, out of the '09, uh, balance, if you will. Well, I appreciate your comments, and I know you and I have had conversation about this. I think what I will do for my council colleagues is, uh, there is a motion on the floor for new business and once we move to council report, I will make a motion to hear an official presentation on the inversion situation at, uh, uh, at a work session soon. So thank you for your comments. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnet. Thank you, Mayor. Joe, I too had a question on A and B. I, I assume on A, on the, uh, deputy director of fleet, this is the only person in that role in government? There's no other threat, deputy directors of fleet, so I assume that's the- Yes, sir. And it's his salary, d- did we compare to the market? I mean, is that comparable to the market? And if we hire someone in from the outside, external candidate, would that be the same salary we would hire someone in at? Y- yes, and that's, that's an excellent point that I should've mentioned earlier. Because of the 10% cap, if you will, on, on promotions for internal candidates, um, they are penalized by being an internal candidate, because if either of these, uh, folks had resigned and, from their position, existing position, and applied as a non-LFUCG employee, uh, the salary recommendation, had they been the successful candidate, which I would expect they would've been if they'd applied from the outside, uh, there would've been no issue with the salary recommendation, and, and we would not be bringing this to you today. But we just felt strongly that, um, in, in, in the instance of, uh, of, um, Mr. Bennett, uh, he's moving, uh, four levels, um, and has demonstrated the capacity to, to do this job, and, and, uh, it would not be right of us to not ask you if we felt that that was an appropriate, uh, salary recommendation for him. So, and, and both of those gentlemen understand how the process works. So I, I assume, are there other program manager seniors that we have in government? Mm-mm. Or is he, will he be the only one? I think so. I'm looking for Cheryl. Yeah, I think- I guess my point is that if there is, I mean, if there are other program manager senior position, is this salary in line with th- those? Yes. And also, again, will this be the same salary we would have hired someone externally in at? Yes. Yes. It would have been. Okay. Given, given the qualifications of the, of the, of the top five candidates, and both of these, uh, both of these folks, when they were interviewed were, were the, the, uh, recommended hire. Thank you. Sure. Councilmember Henson. I was gonna a- actually ask, uh, the same questions as Councilmember Stinnet, but I, I, I just wanted to comment that I think it's great that we, when we can, to promote from within, and, um, as long as the salaries are in line with if we had hired someone from outside the Irving County Government, that that salary would be the same as this person. They, our current employees deserve promotions when- When they're qualified and experienced. Exactly. And, and have shown the ability to take on additional responsibility, uh, it's, it's, uh, a very good thing to be able to, to promote from within, because, uh, they hit the ground running. They already know the, the processes and procedures, and so it, it is a good thing. That's right. Well, thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Councilmember Feigel. Thank you, Mayor Joe. I'm sorry. I think you had already answered part of my question, uh, on A and B as well. I wondered if there, uh, was a change in the grade level. And I guess Mr. Bennett has, um, jumped four, four grade levels- That is correct. ... in this new position. And what about, uh, the, the first one? I believe that- Was there a grade change? ... I, I believe that was a one, uh, one or two. I'm not sure. I, I can check certainly and tell you. Um, Commissioner Cole is not here today, uh, but, uh, she could tell, tell us off the top of her head. I'm, I'm sorry. I, I took a look at this before we came down, but, uh, I did not, I do not remember the number of grades. If, if you'll bear with me, maybe I- It, it would be easier for me to justify this kind of a jump if it was a, a grade change. It was a grade change. Uh, I just, uh, let me look here and see if I can, two, it was two. Thank you. Two grade change. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. Sure. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. My question too is about A and B. Uh, but more specifically, the inversion list. Um, how many people are currently on there? Did you say that earlier? I did not. I can't remember off the top of my head how many there are. It's, it's not a huge number, but it's not two or three either. I, I wanna say it's maybe 10, 12, something like that. ... okay. I can't tell you off the top of my head. You said that the cost for correcting the inversion would be a hundred and something? The last number I heard, I believe, was about $180,000, if I'm not mistaken, and this is to cover two years for- for the... It would take them back and make them whole, uh, from when the inversion was to occur. Okay, and that would bring them current, right? Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah. Um, do we have an ordinance in place that currently speaks to how we manage incurs- uh, inversions? Yes. Um, the ordinance essentially says that anyone who is in the same pay grade, pay, um, category, if you will, uh, if there is, um, a reclassification or someone brought in, I believe, from the outside, that whatever their pay is, then anyone who occupies that same, uh- uh, pay category gets a raise. So are the people on the list, are they satisfied the ordinance? That is, that 12 or 15, whatever it is, they've gone through the process. They're- they weren't being on the list. I'm- I'm sorry, I'm not... The- the inversion list that we currently have. Yes, sir. All the people on that list, they've gone through the process and weren't being on that list. Yes. Like, do they meet the criteria of the ordinance? Yes. It's- it's just a function of, they look at the list and h- if there's three people who are in that same classification, you know, they automatically get the inversion, if you will, unless they already exceed. If they exceed, then probably somebody else should have gotten an inversion. It's a- it's an unusual mechanism, um, from- from my perspective. It's the first time I've ever encountered this kind of a situation where the- this occurs. Okay. I- I understand that it was intended because there's not a pay for- pay for performance mechanism in our pay system, that this was, um, um, uh, felt maybe to be a possible equity kind of issue. Okay. I, um, my last question, it seemed like you said that what you're looking to do is wait until '09 is over and see if there's any money left over. Once we see what our y- year-end close is, what our balance is, is at the end of the year, and then, um, that w- would be something that we could look at as a way of- of, uh, making these folks whole. Okay. That would require your approval, of course. Right. I- if we have an ordinance in place and these folks meet the requirements of the ordinance, w- what's wrong with using the money that's leftover from '08? Excuse me. Why- why don't I let the expert? Okay. Um, this question has come up from several council members and council member believes you and I have been talking about this a little bit. With pay equity, when there's an inversion with a reclassification, there's a policy that the division has to pay the money to correct the current employee to bring them up, and most divisions don't have the money to do it, so then there creates what we call an exception to pay equity. And so that's why we have that list of employees who have not been corrected because the divisions don't have the money to do so, and there's no general pool of money to correct the inversion. Okay. Um, I understand it's a matter of policy wise or as a rule, as in a rule that we normally require that the division have the money in their budget to do this. But I think Mr. Kelly said that, at the time that the list was created, the money was there. It's just that, for whatever reason, the inversions didn't get corrected. And so now the money is gone. And now we have the policy where the division is supposed to have the money to correct it, and most divisions don't have it. So if we had just that money back, that general pool that Mr. Kelly was talking about, then we could correct them, but we don't have those funds. Okay. So as a matter of policy though, this body sets the policy that said that- that division has to have the money in its own pool to correct the inversion. We implemented that, but we also implemented the ordinance that required that inversions be taken care of. So it seems that we, as a body, can set aside the second and then take the money out of the '08 balance, the $4 million we have and correct the inversion now and then put the other one back in place and move forward. Is that... Right. If the funds are there, we can correct them. Right, but the funds are there, but they're not there in the individual division budgets. Right. If the funds were in the right place, then we could correct the inversion. So- so then would an easy way to manage this be to put together a budget amendment that would take the money out of the '08 surplus and put it into the divisions of government that have inversions and then use that money to correct the inversion? Gonna have to defer to budgeting about whether or not we could do it that way. Um, I can only answer if the money is in the appropriate place, then yes, we can do it, but I don't know if we can take it from an '08 budget and move it around. That I can't speak to. Okay. Could I... Mr. Mayor, I- I would think that this... I think the short of this is we can get it done exactly how remains to be seen. But- but, uh, if the money proves to be there from the '09 surplus, that- that's what we intend to do is get it done. Well, I guess my position is that I don't wanna wait until 9:00 if these inversions are already made clear that- that they deserve the raise and we have '08 surplus. My point is how do we get the '08 moved around so we can take care of the inversions now instead of waiting- I see. ... another year. All right. I've been advised that we can put this through blue sheet. If it's authorized by council, then we can put together the budget amendment to move the dollars out of the '08 balance into the place in 2010 budget to do the catch-up, the unfunded portion that- So we could do it for the current budget? So that if we- We could do it in 2010. Okay. That's where we are right now. Okay. Then I guess during my counseling part I'll make that motion to go ahead and set the blue sheet together. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member James. Mr. Mayor, please, I have a question for you. Along the lines with the inversion, is there a separate inversion line item number that can be used so each division can appropriate money to just that line item that deals with any inversions expected to occur? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. If someone could check into that. I... I... I've heard that in the past there was an inversion line item and that each division would budget and it would be part of the whole, you know, mayor's budget thing and brought forward and that way it's, you know, it's clear to council members and anybody else looking what's expected to happen with the aversions. I'm gonna have to do some research to make sure that the... my recollection of history is correct, but, um, uh, so, so let me do that before I answer your question. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm. And Council Member, I... I just... I think we need to continue to talk about this because the word on the street is that council members don't want inversions and I think that we need to make sure that the employees know that we want to advocate for people getting paid the correct amount for what is it... what is that, that they do, um, but it's tough when you have individuals, it ends up being about individual employees, um, as opposed to the entire process when it comes forward on a new business item so I'm willing to work with whomever and intergovernmental of course will, um, as a chair of that, I'm sure would be happy to take on some of these issues and make sure that we fix this process. Thanks, Mayor. Is there any further discussion? Motion on the floor is to prove the items a new business. Seeing no more discussion, those in favor of approving the new business items, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed no. Motion carries. Um, the next item on the agenda is the Services Committee Report. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Services met on August 11th. Ex- excuse me, Mayor, point of order. There's a couple of presentations we didn't receive the information till today. I'll make a motion before council that we just suspend the rules and allow those presentations to take place. So moved. Have a motion and second by... motion by Council Member Stenn and second by C- Council Member James to suspend the rules for purposes of allowing the presentations on the agenda today. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. The Services Committee met on August 11th. We had three items on our agenda. The first one was a taxi cab special permits. The law department brought forward a draft ordinance, um, that only dealt with special events only and for a special time. We heard from the taxi cab, um, individual. We also, um, heard from the Convention Visitors Bureau and, um, Ms. Gordon who brought it forward stated any taxi cab could participate and is a win-win for a city, as it's a great advertising opportunity for a special event. Our, um, law... our attorney stated that the ordinance addresses just special events only and is not drafted for promoting public awareness, but they can do another draft if that's what the council would like and they were going to look into that. A motion was brought forward in the committee to ask law to come back next time to look at this issue. There was an, an issue that was brought up from, um, Council Member Martin about the unanticipated consequences once when you deal with, um, the First Amendment and freedom of speech. And then our law department, um, also answered a question that dealt with, with the World Equestrian Games and that's what they were looking at painting the taxi cabs and the taxi cabs actually companies would be responsible for painting them, would this be an issue with the Clean Zone Ordinance and they said that would not affect the advertising on the taxi cabs. Therefore, a, um, motion by Council Member Myers to move forward with this draft ordinance with the exception of six, which was the definition of taxi cabs, was second by Council Member Hinton and it was passed and I move this forward, Mayor. Second. Have a motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. The second item on the agenda was golf carts on public roads. Back in the... in '08, the legislature allowed local municip- municipalities to adopt ordinances prot- permitting the use of golf carts on designated public ro- roadways. It was brought in committee by Council Member Stenn. We had, uh, Mike Saner from the law department bring forward a draft ordinance that looked at what the requirements from the state required. We had a letter from the police that, um, Paul Schoeniger read to us that had their concerns of safety, administrative process and enforcement issues. The council decided that they were not going to pursue this at this time, not meaning that we could not look at it in the future and a motion was made by Council Member Beard to remove this item from the committee and it was seconded by Council Member Myers and passed without dissent. I'll move that forward. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Myers and a second by Council Member Gordon. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. The third item a- on our agenda was underground, underground utilities and this was brought forward by Council Member Figel and it pertained to all new developments. Ed Garner from the law department went over the changes to the ordinance. He stated the ordinance does... does not include construction- ... road projects, um, nor should at this time, but we could look into that. And I think that's kinda where the discussion started with what happened with Newtown Pike. We had, uh, David Freiberg from KU address the different costs of underground versus overhead utilities, stated the costs for a project such as Newtown is $35 compared to $400 per linear foot. We, um, heard different discussions from the council and a motion by Council Member Feigl to move the subdivision regulation as directed forward, second by Council Member Myers. Passed, and I move this forward. Second. I have a second by Council Member Gordon to Council Member Ellinger's motion. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ellinger, what, um, what did the change in the subdivision regs say? I don't know that it's really clear from the minutes. Well, it's gonna, it's gonna require all new developments to, um, have underground utilities, and I think Council Member Feigl would like to maybe- Okay. ... elaborate on that. Okay. Thanks. Um, I, I'm sorry that we don't have a copy of it here. I was looking for, um, Logan Askew, but I don't see him. David Freiberg. Oh, there you are. Do we happen to have a copy of it, um, that we could get to? Thank you. Uh, I know that it exempted, um, transmission lines and lines up to 200 amps, right, David? And, um, David did speak to its impact on affordable housing, and he said it would be minimal in terms of individual homes. The, the cost that, that was compared at the meeting was relative to, um, Newtown Pike and, uh, con- concrete having to be broken up and all that. So the, the numbers that were thrown out at the, um, Service Committee meeting were not relevant to underground utilities for neighborhoods. Okay. Can I ... Is it okay that I ask a question of David Freiberg? David, with the, the affordable housing that Council Member Feigl just mentioned, when you say minimal cost, what, what's the difference in what a developer of affordable housing would have to pay per unit? Um, with the caveat that that's not what we do, um, let me just suggest that the, the cost differential in a residential environment, where you're dig- where you're building in a, in a green, untouched environment is very different from and much less expensive than, uh, working in urban environments and working around a built, uh, set of facilities. Um, but it would be, in, in our estimation, in the several hundreds of dollars per unit rather than the many, many thousands of dollars and over a, a 30 ... Again, not what we do for, for, for a living, but in over a, a mortgage, uh, lifetime would not be a, a, a big piece in any, any monthly payment. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Cheryl. Thanks, Mayor. And this was ... There were a couple concerns about this, and it will be going as a text amendment to the Planning Commission, so it'll be coming back to us. And there were some ... I have since received some calls from different people, and Mr. Lane had raised this issue from the home builders and others that they'd be able to comment, and they will have an opportunity to comment on this. So I just want to add that information. I think we have a motion. Mayor? Um, we have the motion to approve that recommendation. Right. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Mr. Freiberg, I'll ask you to burn a few more calories. I have another question. Um, a few years ago, you will probably remember that Urban County government included in at least two of its budgets, or maybe three, uh, under grounding utilities downtown. We've done that on, um, some of Main and, uh, some of Vine. Um, and that's been several years. And at the time, the cost was $100 per linear foot, and I was just wondering if you could, um, kind of outline for me ... I know everything goes up in cost, but it seems like a big jump to $400 per linear foot. Can you kind of detail what costs have gone up? Well, I ... As you suggested, all of them have, and I, and I think the 1971, -2, and -3 timeframe was when the major work was done here downtown, and that's 35 years ago. Um, and, and in fact, everything has increased in price since then. Just two examples would be the cost of, of people and the work being done. Uh, think about what, what compensation is today and healthcare and, and what an employee costs an employer, uh, to do a job, uh, from 1973 til now, and it's, it's, uh ... I don't know if it's fivefold, tenfold, what di- what the difference is, but it's substantial. And one component in, in our work would be the cost of copper, and the cost of copper has gone through the roof in the last five years. I mean, it's, uh, it, it ... I don't know if it's tripled or, or, or not, but it's been a, been a many-fold increase in just the, just two components. So materials and people. Yes. Absolutely. I know in the early 2000s, uh, if I recall, we were paying about ... Or early to mid-2000s, we were paying about $100 a linear foot. So the cost of the copper and the personnel. Are just two examples. And, and, and the cost per project will be different in each, each case 'cause it will be dependent upon the facts on the ground, uh, what's, what's there, what's not there, what we have to do, and what else is going on around us. So we'll still have a range. ... uh, but that range starts much higher than it did 35 years ago. In new development even, do you think, e- since this applies to new development, um, it seems to me the cost might be less, since... I'm- I'm- I shouldn't even talk about it. I'm not an engineer or a construction person, but- ... it seems that in new development the cost might be less than, say, south limestone. Absolutely. Uh, it- it is different work. The ma- the- the work and the materials are reduced. They're- the- the- the cable is different. The- the work that has to be done is- is- is on a different scale. Um, and- and the cost of our- of our- of what we have to do is much less. Mm-hmm. Well, I appreciate your perspective. Thank you. All right, we have, uh, Council Member Ehlinger's motion to refer- refer that item. I- I think Mr. Lane? Council Member Lane. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I... Yeah, there was one other thought. I- you know, I support the underground utility lines, but I- I think that one thing we have to be cognizant of, and sometimes in construction you run into soil conditions that are, uh, like rock and it's very difficult to run underground lines that increase the cost, so there may be some, uh, circumstances where having underground lines are not always appropriate. Just wanted to throw that out. Okay. Any further discussion? Then I believe the motion is to refer this item to the planning commission for consideration. Is that correct? It would be to move the subdivision re- um, regulations forward. Yes, sir. All right. Any discuss- further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And then the last item was an internal to the committee, then we remove the issue of the Zandel stormwater ditch from the committee, and we adjourned at 2:25. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any further questions for Council Member Ehlinger? All right. Um, items B and D on the, uh, agenda today are somewhat related, so I think it might make sense, if there's no objection, to ask, uh, Mr. Salih to come forward and do the, uh, uh, internal audit report, and then we can deal with the tax issues all at once. So, if there's no objection, Mr. Salih, if you could, uh, come forward, I would appreciate it. Uh, Mayor. Uh, may I also suggest that when we, uh, change the order that we put the report from the Department of Environmental Quality first- Okay. ... since it will, uh, address the fact that we're tryin' to reduce the taxes too. Sure, we can do that. Thank you. Uh, thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today, as well as, uh, all the members of the council here at the work session. And, uh, before you, on the screen there, is, um, some information that, uh, is, uh, important to be presented, uh, before I talk about the results of an audit report. And that is the internal audit process. I will not read through that- that entire process, but, uh... See if I can get this to work. Should I pause for them? Yeah, go ahead. Uh, in the first paragraph it start- it states that the, uh, the mission of the Office of Internal Audit provide independent objective assurance and consulting services to add value to improve the Irvin County government's operations. It's important to understand that internal controls are the responsibility of management. Each individual department and division has the basic responsibility for establishing, maintaining, and periodically reviewing its internal control systems. The objectives of the Office of Internal Audit are to assist members of the Irvin County government in the effective discharge of their responsibilities by furnishing them analysis, recommendations, counsel, and information concerning the activities reviewed, and by promoting effective internal control at a reasonable cost. In the last paragraph of that, uh, handout, you will see that it states, uh, it should be noted, and I think this is always very important, and I like to- to make this point to Budget and Finance and particularly also today to the full work session and to the public. It's important to understand that findings are a common result of an audit, and they do not in and of themselves indicate carelessness or negligence on the part of management. A deficiency identified during an audit can be the result of many factors, some of which may be only partly controllable by management. In addition, internal audit reports are designed to draw attention to opportunities for improvement, and therefore do not address the areas of satisfactory performance that may be noted during an audit, and therefore Council is encouraged to maintain a balanced perspective regarding the nature and extent of internal audit findings. Uh, the next, uh, document would be the, uh, summary of audit results for engineering new development section process. As it states in the summary of audit results, the Office of Internal Audit completed an audit of the Division of Engineering New Development Sections on June 19th of '09 in response to an Irvin County Council special request. That full report was provided to all council members at that time. Uh, the general control objectives for that audit were to determine that the Division of Engineering, NDS, inspection process was efficient and effective, that field inspectors and engineers had the necessary training and experience to perform their required duties, that field inspections were completed timely and adequately documented. The inspection process is sufficiently managed and anomalies are resolved in a timely manner, and problem resolution process is effective, sufficiently documented, and communicated to all stakeholders. Uh, the following findings were reported to senior management. These were, uh, provided in detail in the audit reports, and in the, uh, the summary here as I just kind of highlight what those findings were. Management should develop standardized documentation requirements for field inspections to ensure that documented results of inspections indicate inspections were appropriately conducted. Management should also develop procedures to provide oversight and monitoring of field inspections to ensure timely, accurate, and thoroughly documented field inspections that comply with all federal, state, and local regulations. Division of Engineering Management should periodically validate reported inspections by conducting random unannounced field level reviews of inspection work performed. Management should develop improved documentation requirements for inspections affecting letters of credit amounts. Division of Engineering Management should periodically validate reported inspections by conducting random unannounced field level reviews of inspection work performed. The NDS reporting structure should be reorganized to provide at a minimum the assignment of direct supervision of field level personnel to one supervisor to improve the management and accountability of that function. There is no systematic process for NDS problem tracking and resolution. Management should coordinate with Lexical to obtain database tracking regarding the nature of issues reported and to determine if assigned NDS employees have implemented timely and appropriate steps to resolve the issues. This database tracking will also provide NDS management a systematic database of information regarding issues that may have several years of history associated with them. The duties of project coordinator should be assigned to a licensed professional engineer as required by the engineering procedures manual to ensure the highest level of proficiency of professional competency in the project coordinator's position. Licensed professional engineer seals should be obtained for submitted construction plan documents as required by the engineering procedures manual including any amendments to original plans as they become the new representations of the external engineering firms. In our opinion, LFUCG should continue the current practice of placing reliance on external license professional engineers to provide detailed reviews of development plans while division of engineering personnel should continue to perform their limited reviews of such plans. Documentation of commercial pre-construction meetings needs to be improved to increase the overall accountability of this process. These meetings are required before grading permits can be issued. Engineering management should request that information technology update the NDS database to include the documentation of commercial inspections which currently are manual in nature. And supplemental commercial files, for example, for building reconstruction, should contain checklists to ensure personnel are aware of and document compliance with all required project meetings and inspections. Management's responses to the findings indicated appropriate action would be taken to correct the deficiencies identified and management and staff were very courteous and cooperative throughout the course of the audit. Uh, that, uh, completes the summary of the audit results for the engineering new development section process and, uh, I'll be happy to take any questions from, uh, the council if there are any. Thank you, Mr. Sally. Any, uh, questions from members of the council? Council member Lane. Uh, yeah, I do have a question. When you did your review, could you, uh, did you determine how many bonds were active at the time and maybe what the average number of bonds that were active during that, you know, a five-year period or something to see what the scope of that responsibility, how much bonding was involved? No, sir. We did not do that. Oh. Do you think that would be worth maybe going back and looking at those numbers? I think it would be valuable to the council to have an overview of, you know, how many of these bonds are active and, and how much ex- exposure there is, uh, not to the Irwin County government, but, uh, to have that work, you know, competently completed. I would be pleased to do that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, Bruce, I just wanted to ask, r- regarding, uh, finding number seven, um, is, is part of your recommendation there that, that, that we should continue to, uh, uh, you know, to rely on, on, on the private sector for the, uh, for the detailed, uh, reviews because we, we, we have... I can't remember the exact number of, of PEs in the new development section, but it's a fairly small number. Yes, it is, sir. Um, we, uh, we felt it was a combination of two things. We thought that the high priority findings that we identified in the report, which I just spoke of coupled with the fact that the NDS section of engineer- engineering has only four licensed- Right. ... professional engineers and that includes the director. Uh, we felt that indicates that NDS process and the available NDS personnel were not sufficient to assume those additional responsibilities and the associated risk of liability to the Irwin County government. So did you consider recommending that we increase our number of PEs in that section and then reduce our reliance on, on, on outside professional engineers? That would be a possibility. That was not one of our specific recommendations. I realize that, uh, increasing personnel is a costly and long, sometime long term process. The recommendations that we've put in place were really there to try to address the issue on more of a real-time basis. Long term, that could be a possible solution. Oh, thank you. I just wondered whether that was, um, whether you thought that it might be cost-effective, uh, among other things to, to, to, uh, bolster our staff in, in, in that regard. Uh- Regarding nu- uh, finding number eight, we get that's the, um, I, I think of the 10 findings, seven are, are high priorities, two are moderate- Mm-hmm. ... and one is, uh- Yes. ... one is low. Uh, I would, and, and I wondered whether you had considered maybe that, that, that the, that, that number eight regarding, uh, uh, grading permits and, and, and documentation of them should not be a higher number, since we, uh, we have had several grading issues in, in the past. Mm-hmm. Well, the grading process is somewhat of a qualitative process, so there is some professional judgment involved there. Uh, certainly I think, um, if you look at what, uh, the moderate, what the meaning of moderate risk is, uh, it states that, um, this represents a finding requiring timely action by management to mitigate risk associated with the process being audited, whereas a high represents a finding requiring immediate action. So, uh, from my own professional judgment, my sense was they can maybe take a little more time to address number eight, but the s- the ones that were high priority, they need immediate attention. And, uh, prob- possibly, uh, Commissioner Webb can, can speak more to some of the specific action plans that they put in place and how they're addressing all of these items and concluding number eight. No, that's okay. I, uh, uh, I think this is very thorough, uh, and, and, and detailed and important audit, and I, and I, and I do hope that we follow through on, uh, on your recommendations. And from what I read of the responses of, of the director and the commissioner, we're gonna do just that. Thank you. Thank you. I, I would like to make one more point, sir. Um, in un- in understanding what you talked about with going out and, and, and hiring some additional, uh, professional engineers, uh, I think it's also important though to remember that the other, the other part of that was the improvement in policies and procedures to, to, uh, strengthen that process as well as, as you say, maybe at some point in time adding personnel, so I think that's a very important part of the equation to addressing the findings here and not just additional personnel. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Mr. Salih for your, uh, comprehensive report here. Yeah. Um, eh, will you remind me, first of all, what is your... I know that in one meeting you showed us your, um, spreadsheet on getting management back in touch with you- The follow-up process, yes. ... to follow up on what's been done. Mm-hmm. What's the timeframe on that from your shop? I think engineering, I know that engineering is working diligently at this time to address a lot of these findings. Uh, I think some of their timeframes, uh, put some of the resolution processes in place either the end of August or end of September. Okay. I can't speak to that exactly. Again, Commissioner Webb, I think may have more complete information about that. Okay. Well, he's, he's waiting on the edge of his chair. Uh, Commissioner Webb, that leads right to my question, which was, uh, in my estimation, the findings which are rated high priority, some of those are, I believe, very serious issues. Mm-hmm. And they impact neighborhoods. They impact other people beyond, um, you know, beyond the engineering division itself. Um, and so could you give us a, just a quick capsule of when you think these high priority items will be finished? If you would allow me to- Mm-hmm. ... let me explain how we... And, uh, uh, I believe I shared this with the, uh, planning committee when the audit was presented there. Mm-hmm. It's typically how I have dealt with audits through my career. I've been through a lot of audits because I came from a highly regulated industry. Uh, what we did, uh, we had a very good closing meeting with, uh, audit staff and talked through all the issues, told d- eh, actually shared with them what our intentions were, put together our recommendations, and once the audit was final and was presented, uh, we built the plans. We made some changes immediately. Uh, for instance, uh, with the, uh, pre-construction meeting, you see a finding there that was, uh, was not a high priority, but it was very simple to accomplish, we came up with some new forms and put those immediately into practice. Uh, but what we did is we built a plan. We put dates on the different steps of the plan, when things would be accomplished. We have some things, uh, being accomplished, uh, mid-August, which I believe all of those have been met, uh, and then the, the remainder of the items to be completed by September 1st. And really the bulk of this and, and a lot of what you find in the audit is due to the fact that there is not a written procedure for required documentation for each type of inspection. So what we had was we had some inspectors that did a lot of dec- documentation on forms that they used- Mm-hmm. ... and were very good at documenting, and then we had some that reportedly put notes on, on plats or plans and the information was not recoverable. ... there, there was no procedure in place for where and what needed to be documented. So by September 1, that procedure will be in place. It's being worked on right now. Uh, there were no s- not in all cases, but in many cases, there were not standardized inspection forms which had all the different items that you needed to inspect. Uh, so the majority, I think almost everything except for one that I kicked back because it didn't show, didn't suit me, uh, all of those have now been developed. Uh, they're in somewhat simple form, but they're all there, and it's what we intend to start with and then tweak those as we go. I'm sure we'll find that there's some things that are missing or we didn't get everything on there, but the key here for me was two things, to get a procedure that covered all the documentation, the record-keeping requirements, get that all in place, and train our folks in that procedure, and then to also at the same time get it documented, which will be part of this procedure, what I call a QA/QC. It's a quality control program where engineering goes out and takes a look at its inspectors, uh, to make sure that number one, they are calibrated and they are looking at things the same. Some of the issues that I've heard were, "When I have this inspector, they don't say anything about this. When I have this inspector, I get written up for this or get an NOV." What we need to do is calibrate those folks, and in order to calibrate em, you have to make, go out and make sure that they are all looking at something and documenting it the same and they, they all issue NOVs for the same things and other things, they don't. You know, what's, what's allowable and what's not. That process will allow us to calibrate those inspectors so that their inspections are much closer together. Uh, the QA/QC will also allow us to go out there and check and make sure that the inspections are being done or we'll take an in- inspector's work on a regular basis but not announced, take it out the day after it's done, go out in the field, and check the documentation so that we know that it'll become obvious if, if anybody's not been doing their inspection work. So it'll do two things for us. I think one of the most important things that I look for is that calibration. And as we find the differences, we would sit down, meet with all the inspectors, and deal with the issues. And it, it's, it's pretty much a training exercise once you try to calibrate folks. Uh, and then, of course, you, not saying it's out of the realm of possibility that we have people that aren't doing their inspections. That would have to be taken... Once you kind o' identify that after the training, then we would deal with that on disciplinary process. I appreciate that very much. I wonder if, I, I'd like to request that sometime in September, uh, the two of you... It might be you do this through Mr. Salih or i- in conjunction with Mr. Salih, that you report back to the council- Mm-hmm. ... as to what has been done in the division of engineering to fix u- these- Uh, Mr. Salih, Salih and I have already spoken. Once the, once the procedure is written- Mm-hmm. ... and we're satisfied with it, our intent was to pass it over to auditing and let them review it and see if the steps in there, they felt like the steps in there took care of the, the issues in the audit. The one thing we didn't want to do was put out a procedure and have them come back in six months or a year and audit again and find some of the similar things. So we'd already discussed that, and when it's done, the procedure will go. Once that happens, we can come back and- Okay. Well, I think council members would probably... I know I would appreciate knowing what's been done to change the situation. Thank you very much. And it's, and you know, there's one thing that I would like to bring up. Uh, this process has never been audited before, and so, uh... And really, this, this was part of our kickoff meeting for this audit. I take these things very seriously. It was part of our kickoff meeting, part of our exit meeting with auditing. They, in my eyes, and based on where I came from, were the best friends we have to point out, because their eyes from outside looking in, they can point out things that cause us problems and give us an opportunity to correct those things. So that's how I've always seen it. The, I think they're great partners, and, uh, as far as this, this audit and the relationship goin' forward, I really look forward to workin' with these people and, and the problems that they find, that we can get 'em corrected in a reasonable amount of time through a good process. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council member Figel. Thank you, Mayor. First, I'd like to thank you for all the time and effort that's gone into this audit. Uh, I do think that if we can implement all of the recommendations, um, we'll, we'll be makin' a really good start toward perfecting our process. But as a follow-up to that, one of the, the issues that you and I, Mike, have talked about, um, probably since January there, uh, in the fifth district, it's, it's, it's an area of older homes- Mm-hmm. ... and there has been a tendency for folks to come in and actually remove a home and build a new one. And what I have come to believe is that our ordinances do not address redevelopment as well as they need to address redevelopment. And so that's what I wanted to, uh, uh, to suggest is that, that either, um- ... either we put that into a committee and, and discuss what needs to be changed in terms of a, of our ordinances addressing the infill and redevelopment because it is a relatively new animal to us, and we probably are going to be doing more of that. And- I would agree with you that I think, think that, uh, think we're gonna be doing a lot more of that. In fact, I think that's, there's a lot of movement toward that. And we would welcome supporting that effort. Uh, the one, just whenever you deal with that, we, we do have problem. When a problem arises around that redevelopment and we don't have an ordinance that addresses it, I think that's what causes the frustration. And we'd be more than happy to work with developing an ordinance that more adequately- Addresses- ... addresses that. ... the redevelopment issues. That, yeah. I know be- 'cause the one that you and I looked at, uh, applied to, um, only homes that had not had a bish, um, a building perm- issue, building permit- Mm-hmm. ... issued previously. And this one was an empty lot being redevelopment, but in fact had gotten a building permit the first time around. Mm-hmm. But, uh, it didn't help us in addressing the drainage there. And those, those types of issues, eh, eh, we'd be more than willing to sit down and see what, you know, how we can, can develop an ordinance or amend what we have to more adequately address that. But from that point on, it becomes council's job to adopt that. Thank you. I'm not sure if this is something that, that you all t- will take on or if it's something that needs to go into committee. Does anybody have any insight into that, how, how our ordinances need to be restructured to address the needs of infill and redevelopment? May I? We had a fairly extensive, um, review of that by the Infill and Redevelopment Task Force, I guess it was, Vice Mayor Gray, that concluded its work six months or a year ago, something in that neighborhood. Well, yeah. It's still, maybe, since I just arrived, can you repeat that one for me? Help me. I'm sorry. We were talking about generally, uh, the audit focusing on new development. Council Member Figo raised the question about the need to also focus on redevelopment efforts in much the same way as we- Oh, yeah. ... had focused on new development. 'Cause it applies to storm water. Right. Right. And the, uh, yes, sir. And, and so, I think the question Council Member Figel posed was is it better to put it in a committee or deal with it in another setting? And that's when I raised the fact that the Infill and Redevelopment Group had been working pretty diligently on an assortment of those general types of issues. I don't recall whether that one was addressed. Um, as it relates to redevelopment and the process, the- The entire inspection process and- Okay. ... and the requirements of the ordinances relative to drainage in particular. But, um- Yeah, I don't know that this... I saw Kevin Wente here earlier, and Kevin, our good fortune is that the mayor and Joe Kelley and the administration appointed Kevin to help us with implementation on our infill and redevelopment recommendations of which there are 106, and we've pulled them all together in buckets and now working on 'em sort of one-by-one. Kevin, is that specifically under... I don't think it is, so that may be one that you can deposit into it. Let me throw- So you're- ... actually throw it into... Yeah, we have a pretty good process for accommodating new stuff as well as the existing, existing issues. So- Okay. ... if we want to do that, we could do it. I, I would absolutely, um, be very, uh, supportive of your taking over that issue and examining our ordinances for how they apply to redevelopment. Thank you. It'll be done. Kevin's here to hear it, right? Thank you, sir. Thanks, Mayor. Um, Council Member Gordon I think had one thing t- related to that. Thank you, thank you. Also, uh, Council Member Figel, I, I think it's important when we do this that we talk with Water Quality because they're, I believe, in the process of, of at least thinking about and moving toward redoing the stormwater manuals. Is that... I'm getting yeses. So it all needs to be integrated together because those stormwater manuals also drive some of the, um, situations that we might have with the infill. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Salih, and thank you, Commissioner. I know that, Commissioner, you take this very seriously, and you've done a fantastic job of following up. I like the way that you two are gonna work together to look at, um, the changes that you're gonna make and then make sure they're implemented. I appreciate that. Um, right now, I'd just like to go, I move to go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 subsection 1F for discussion which may lead to the discipline of individual employees. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second to go into closed session. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Um, if we could, uh, ask everyone other than, than, um, Mr. Webb and Mr. Salih and- I'd like to move that we return to open session. Thank you. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Lawless and a second by Council Member Crosby that we return to open session. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Commissioner Taylor. I'm with it. If you and, um, Commissioner O'Mara would make your way to the podium, please. We'll be out of here by 8:00. No problem. Sorry, we're trying to get the slides up. Okay, great. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna speak a little bit today about a, a subject that I've been asked about from council members several times over the last few months, and, uh, several of us worked over the last several weeks to come back with a report- ... and give you a, a beginning overview of the waste management program and the fundamental question of how much money is in the Urban Services Fund. Okay. Uh, just to give you a little bit of an, uh, background. Um, the Department for Environmental Quality, and then Bill and the finance and administration group were requested to review data and communicate the Urban Services Fund balance, uh, to the council. We, um, began to work on that, um, I guess early in the summer, and it turned out that we needed to include an awful lot of people in that discussion. Finance, revenue, our waste management folks, people in budget, fleet, human resources, our commissioner's office, and we even used some consultants to try to pull this data together. Um, and at this point, even though I'm coming forward today, the data is still preliminary, and we're gonna continue to refine the details of that data over the next four to six months. Okay. Now, with a little bit of background. Uh, for me, uh, urban services districts is not something that I normally know much about. I'm, but, but what I wanted to do is give a, a brief overview of the Urban Services Fund, really are accounts for three primary groups of services: waste collection, streetlights, and street cleaning. And there are six special districts, um, that get a combination of service. Um, ad valorem tax rate is established for each district based on the services they receive, and District 1, um, homes receive all three services; waste, streetlights, and street cleaning, while Districts 3 through 7 receive either one or two of the available services. So it varies a little bit from area to area. Most of you all certainly know that, but wanted to review that for anybody watching that may not understand. Okay. Not all Urban Service Fund revenues go for waste management, but it's certainly the lion's share. Uh, the little pie chart is, uh, reflects the, uh, the d- distribution of the Urban Services Fund revenue and where it goes. Pretty tiny numbers there. I think you have a handout, hopefully, in front of you. Uh, but, uh, there are a few other revenue streams that go into that number besides the ta- uh, the, uh, Urban Services Fund property tax. There is revenue from recycling. We also get some revenue from dumpster rentals and that sort of thing. So there's a few other waste streams that go in to create, uh, that revenue stream that ultimately goes into waste management. 'Kay. Also point out that in Fayette County, uh, we all certainly provide most of the service to households in Fayette County, but we do have some households that are serviced by private providers. Uh, the numbers are small, um, if you don't have the handout, but in 2008, for example, our city services, uh, provided 119,000 plus services to, uh, property owners. Private services provided about 11 and a ha- 11,546 thousand. So we have a significantly large portion of the service available in the county. Now, this is, uh, meant to talk a little bit about some of the trends that are happening in waste. Uh, and you know we've done a lot of work over the last several months to get a grip on what it is we generate as waste, and we do have a separate, um, waste stream characterization study that was funded. And you've seen some of the preliminary data. We do know that a lot of the material that we put into the landfill is recyclable or reusable in some way. That's kind of a separate discussion from today. But in general, programmatic trends, uh, in Fayette County, our tonnage disposed is slightly up, and you can see there's a little black line there. It's hard to see on the screen, but, um, almost half a million tons in, in 2008 were collected. That does include our construction and demolition debris. That's about 22,000 tons roughly. The other thing that you can see on the handout, not very well on the screen, is our recycling tonnages are up for nearly all categories. Uh, those two represent cardboard and electronic scrap you can see is significantly increased and that corresponds, of course, with people changing out, uh, different devices for cable and all that. But it also corresponds to our increasing, uh, to six day a week drop-off for electronic scrap in the city. Glass is the one that's dropping. Um, I don't have a complete answer for you there although glass is a separate stream that ha- is handled separately and is typically not picked up by private carriers. Um, so those may be some contributing factors. Paper, newsprint, plastics, and aluminum and used beverage cans is the bottom-right corner. Um, those are all showing either steady, uh, production or increased recycling. There's some other points about our program that I think are worth mentioning. Um, we've all struggled a little bit with fuel costs. They've definitely doubled and that impacts the cost of service and the delivery of service in Fayette County. So that has, uh, contributed to our higher operating expenses. We have used a quite a few temporary employees in the recycling area, but also in collections. That, uh, drops your personnel costs somewhat, but, but that shows up as an operating expense, so that skews the numbers a little bit. We've had, uh, I think this is normal, but emergency operations, um, since I've been here, at least once a year we've had some significant weather-related event that required extraordinary, uh, service, uh, provided by the Division of Waste Management. So that's always an extra, uh, cost involved. We do also provide significant support for, um, events in the community that range from campus, the campus time when we have transitional neighborhoods. Also, uh, the public events recycling. As you know we have a ordinance that went into effect earlier this year that required public events recycling and so we've seen an increase in the requests for the city to provide service. And one other comment in the program, the, the tax or the waste tax or refuse tax, has been tweaked down twice, um, since fiscal year 04. Uh, first I think it went from 17.5 cents down to 16 cents, and then last year a small tweak from 16 down to 15.9. Small data again. The municipal solid waste is what really is called nationally. Uh, the national data shows that Lexington is, is similar the way the rest of the nation goes in that in 1960, we generated 88 million tons of waste, and in 2007 as a nation we generated 254 million tons of waste. So we've s- tripled what we generate as a nation in the last 40 or 50 years. Um, per person we've almost doubled what we generate. But we've also improved our recycling rates. Back in 1960, the nation only recycled 5.6 million tons, and today it's closer to 85 million. So, I think we're on track with the rest of the country. Now, talking a little bit about capital investment, wh- you've, you've heard some about me complain about that when I come up and say, "I need money to do this or that," and I always point out that I need capital. But, but the bars there can kinda tell the story for you from a numbers perspective. We really didn't invest much in our waste program in, in 2007, 2008. Um, but you'll see that we're making up for lost time in 2010, or at least the adopted budget gives us the opportunity to make some changes and to, particularly around vehicle replacements. That represents a significant chunk of that bar, and, um, that's something that we need to do in order to move to the single-stream system. Um, these are the things that we are working on right now to improve the work that we do in waste. And I mentioned the single-stream system and you all might recall that the vehicle replacement schedule, um, the, the vehicles that we run today are specialized in operation. We have garbage trucks and we have recycle trucks and we have glass trucks that go around and pick up extra and we have yard waste trucks. Um, by going to a single-stream operation, we're going to be able to f- put the glass in with the rest of the, uh, items in the ROSI, pick it all up at once, and one truck can service all of those containers. So instead of having specialized trucks and problems with having the right size fleet and replacing different trucks, we will have one truck, w- and, and one, uh, one operation to pick that up. We also think that's gonna encourage more glass recycling, and certainly helps our drivers out on the road when they pick it up. We've also als- been funded for the new MRF equipment that you supported at the end of last fiscal year. That's gonna be incredibly important for us. We're gonna, uh, triple the capacity of our existing recycling facility and we will add storage capacity. Um, that little eddy-current separator is a problem we've had. That's what helps you get the aluminum cans out of the waste stream and it has been broken for several months, and the new equipment will replace that and fix that, so we expect to have a better rate of, um, collecting cans out of that. Uh, soon, um, within the next couple weeks, we'll be coming to you with a project that you've heard something about, the GPS GIS system is gonna be a significant improvement to our routes and the routes that we run, to our ability to redirect drivers to different areas as needed. Um, these are the types of systems that have been in use th- at companies like UPS and FedEx for decades. Right now, we run these systems off of spreadsheets and manual and it's, um, it's about 180,000 service points a week. Doing that with a spreadsheet is not particularly efficient. Uh, we also, uh, in, in the recent, um, study that we did on waste streams, th- we identified that our, uh- ...sw- waste stream at the recycle is much larger than necessary. We have about 14% of the material that goes into the MRF that winds up not getting recycled for different reasons. Sometimes it's because it was an inappropriate material, but sometimes it's because our system isn't very good at pulling it out and it goes in with the inappropriate material. So we think we can do a better job with the new equipment there. The GBB report on the waste stream also recommended we add a second supervisor out at the MRF, uh, especially when we expand our capacity. And another idea that has been, um, suggested is that we do a better job of enforcing for litter and dumping. Right now, we incur a lot of costs because we pick up things that people put out and there's very little limit. Uh, we don't enforce the ordinance that we have in place, so we're examining that opportunity to help us improve our costs... reduce our costs and improve our service. I think it's, um, apparent to all of us, and we all recognize that we could be more efficient. Um, I think that some of the steps we are taking are gonna create that opportunity for us. Increasing the processing capacity at the MRF is gonna be a real key in us generating additional revenue from recycling. Right now, we are maxed out. We are very limited in what we can bring in. And frankly, we don't go out and recruit more materials because we couldn't put them anywhere if we brought them in. But with the new rate, triple the capacity with some storage added in, we can go out and aggressively try to bring in more recyclable materials in order to generate more revenue. We think that we can reduce costs significantly by marketing our materials directly. We already do that with some of our waste streams and we think there's plenty of opportunity to do that with some of the others. It's important that we get stable markets and good relationships, but we're very interested in increasing the revenue per ton. Um, maximizing route efficiencies and, and also helping get people in place in the jobs. We've got about two minutes, two and a half minutes left. Ah. Okay. Well, I'll let you skim through the additional initiatives. We have a lot more going on than we have, uh, touched on. Okay. Fund balance. The fund balance, uh, as of June 30th, which is still a preliminary number is $30,027,629. And you can see the total 24,968,246 is the share for the waste management program. The balance, how did it become so large? I think one big reason is that we've had a very high vacancy rate. We have at least 49 vacancies in waste, and that changes weekly. Uh, we have two more leaving this week. So that has been a challenge for us and it, it has increased our temporary labor costs. The other main reason, as I mentioned before, is capital investment. We really failed to invest for a couple of years and so as a result, we're gonna try to make up ground. Immediate plan, uh, is to fill vacant positions, replace vehicles, install equipment, get the GPS system in, increase our recycling revenue and move to more automated systems where particularly worker safety is gonna be one of our top priorities. As a city, we have a couple of policy calls we can consider. One is, um, what do we want to do with available funds in the urban services balance? Should we use that for upcoming projects? And then what do we base our plans on? What is the vision for Lexington's waste program in the future? Cheryl, do you need more time? Because I'd be happy to make a motion. Um, I have two more slides. Maybe I'm- I make a motion to extend an additional three to five minutes is necessary. Second. Have a motion to extend to, let's say four minutes. Uh- How many- A- any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose no? Motion carries. Sorry, got a little wordy. Um, okay. This st- slide like summarizes what we are proposing or recommending, uh, for the future for waste. Uh, reducing the waste management portion of the urban services fund or the garbage tax, uh, by 20% over two years. Uh, that's very aggressive. Uh, but with the plans we have in place, we think that's doable. Uh, implement essential projects. That's definitely important to achieve the first bullet. We have critical vacancies that we're continuing to work on filling. We're adding management staff that you all have supported, and that's been a key for us. And we are automating processes so that we no longer have the issues with temp labor and injuries to our employees. And we also are, uh, requesting that the budget and finance committee, as we've talked with council members, Senate, um, take a look at some of the alternative funding strategies proposed in the 2006 report and make some decisions about what direction we want to go in as a city. I did include, uh, one slide, which is again difficult to see on the screen, but it shows you a little bit about the effects of the cuts. Um, um, the revenue that we take in and the amount that we have spent over the last several years to operate the division of waste management, the revenue exceeds what it takes to operate. Uh, we are though looking at increasing the capital that we put in every year and what our goal would be to, um, have that be a inflow of cash and outflow of expenditures that would be balanced. That gives you an idea what the impact is on the homeowner with $150,000 home. And there's a symbol with the horse. And I'm sorry I ran over slightly 15 minutes, but that's a quick overview of what's going on in the waste program, what's in the urban services fund balance, what we would recommend, um, and I'm available to talk about details of anything that you want to ask about. Let me elaborate on, uh, those last couple of slides. We're proposing a 20% reduction over a two-year period of time. We're very comfortable with the first year being a 10% reduction. That will give us a period of time to make the changes that Commissioner Taylor has outlined for you. Um, we feel like over the course of the next 12 months, we can implement those operating efficiencies and begin to see some increased revenue from increasing our recycling flow. And if that happens, then we'd be prepared to go ahead and recommend to you next year that we reduce the so-called garbage tax by an additional 10%. Now, in the interim, I know a number of you have expressed some desire to take a hard look at the idea of changing the way we pay for our garbage service from a property tax to a fee-based arrangement. And that is a very reasonable alternative to explore. If at the end of the next 12 months we conclude we ought to go to a fee, we will have some operating efficiencies in place that will enable us to set the fee at a reasonable rate. If we conclude that the property tax is the way we need to continue to fund, uh, we think we'll be in a position then to recommend an additional 10% reduction in the property tax. So that's just a little bit of a clarification. I know it looks a little bit at odds to be talking about a two-year property tax phased-in reduction while we're looking at a fee, but for the moment, we've got a property tax. We think we can make a substantial reduction in it, and, uh, the next year will give us a chance to look at whether or not the property tax or some other option is, is the, uh, best means of funding the program. Um, this is all prompted by the fact that we have to set our property tax rate here in the next few weeks in order to comport with the, um, with the requirements of the state. It might be helpful if we went ahead and, and let Mr. Romera do his presentation and then ask questions about all of them at once, because it's all kind of integrated. Do you want to talk now? All right, that's fine. Go right ahead. Council Member Stunnet. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Taylor, thank you for, uh, bringing this to us today. I know those of, uh, have been around here since 2006, you know, understand, you know, the, the study that was done back then and some of the challenges that, that you all have faced. I know, um, when presenting, uh, a tax cut, this is probably, Mayor, the, uh, the biggest tax cut we've ever seen in Fayette County. Even though it's $50 a household, it probably is the only tax that we've seen in Fayette County besides the sunset payroll tax, and that has not been neutralized. In other words, we ha- we've decreased the tax before, but we've put another one on. This is strictly decreasing one. And, uh, I appreciate you all, uh, bringing this to us today for consideration. Our biggest concern is if we reduce this tax, and I know you and I have talked about this earlier, but I think it would benefit talking about again publicly, is how confident are you in the efficiency side in terms of the bottom line and how much it costs us to operate our total system? With that number, I know three or four months ago, we weren't really comfortable with what that number was. After we've been th- through this past budget cycle, how confident are we in that bottom line number and how much it costs us to run our recycling and solid waste programs? Well, budget and finance folks have helped us quite a bit in uncovering that number. I feel really comfortable that it takes us about $26 million a year to run the operation. Uh, that's been historically repeated over the last several years. Um, that doesn't always include the capital, but that's about what it takes us to run. The part that we're still gonna be sorting out, and the reason I said refinement over the next four to six months is within that $26 million, how much is personnel and how much ... You know, where do those inside lines go? And I think I have opportunities within that once we get a grip on where those expenditures go to help, uh, improve efficiencies there. But, but as far as the overall number, that's been repeated and consistent, so I feel comfortable with that. And did you, when you look at that number, did you look at the commercial pickups, the cost of picking up the dumpsters? Is that included in that 26 million? That's part of the overall cost, yes. Okay, 'cause I know in 2010- Not, doesn't include any private, you know, work, simply what we cover, but at, at this level. Okay. And does that number also include, uh, I think there's, there are folks in our community that are paying for service- Mm-hmm. ... on their property tax bill, but actually do not receive our garbage pickup. I- is there any plan to take those folks out even? Because, you know, that's a big issue in some of our areas where we've either said, "We can't get a garbage truck in," or whatever it may be, but they're paying for service they're not getting. I know i- if we do that, do we have an idea of how many people that really is and how much that would impact, um- I don't right now. Okay. But that's something that we can certainly investigate. I mean, and, and it's not a new idea. I've heard that mentioned. I just don't know how many people and what amount of money that would be. Okay. And then also, have we forecasted the, the revenue changes in the MRF? I- if we expand the MRF and use some of our surplus to get that process going, I know this past year, I think we received around $2 million from the recycling center. Have we projected out- This year it was down a little bit. The markets were down. It was more like a million and a half, but the previous year was 2.2. And that's with a really steady 20,000 tons a year, um, available stream to market. But we were projecting, and I don't have that with me, but we were projecting, uh, that the, that equipment investment that we put into the existing MRF would pay out in about two or three years. Um, the next year we're projecting to increase our revenue by at least 50%, um, and then go up from there. So I think the MRF revenue, uh, still needs a lot of investigation if you're talking four or five years out, but- One thing we do know that is, is the money that we spend to pay others to market for us is definitely something that we could do for ourselves. That's $7 a ton. Um, th- the increased volume, uh, is, is an opportunity for us. And then we have a number of waste streams that we don't recycle today that have a value on the market. And we want to begin to collect those. And we've actually hired the person on staff for Steve who's beginning to put that program together. So I oughta have a lot better data soon. But- And what about staffing levels? I know, I mean, I'm a firm believer we have excellent workers out there and, and staff, but I know we're undermanned in a lot of areas. What is the process of, of getting that ramped up and to where it should be? Well, we've been working with HR and, um, they know it's our top priority really in the entire department. We have a number of critical positions in water as well. But because we have so many drivers that we're short, we've made that our top priority. Um, they're working on, uh, recruiting, uh, o-... We've normally gone with the ad in the paper. They're actually gonna do some additional recruiting on radio. Uh, but we, we need to get more candidates, more qualified candidates in. So that's one of the strategies. Um, another strategy though is once we get the candidates in, we want to make that job one that they want to stay with and we want to make that job safer. Um, so when we go to these automated truck systems and eliminate the glass pickup, we think that job is gonna be more desirable for more people over a longer period of time. And hopefully that'll stabilize that. Well, uh, I know... But I know one of the recommendations is to fill the vacancies as soon as possible. What do we mean? Six months? A year? Well, we're hoping to fill them now. Uh, som-... The driving positions. The operating positions are the most critical. We have a couple more management positions that we want to fill. Um, so yeah, with the drivers and operations, it's immediate. Um, other than... Uh, we, we expect to have an ad in this week, frankly. So we're hoping to get the driving positions first. Um, the public service workers also. And then the other positions, I would say hopefully within three months. Not all of them, but, but the critical ones. Very good. Well, uh, we'll continue discussing this whole issue with the Urban Services Fund next Tuesday during Budget and Finance. And I appreciate Bill and yourself working overtime. And Mayor, thank you for bringing this to us because I think it's long overdue that we take a look at this, at this tax and the efficiency of our system. Because I think we got good employees, we just need to, to, to manage the system a lot better. And it sounds like we're getting to the point where we're gonna be able to tell the community how much it really does cost us to pick up, uh, a herbie on a daily basis and be able to charge accordingly. So thank you all. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, thanks Commissioner for the presentation. I, I do... I've always, um, felt as if the, um, waste management process needed to have full transparency and talk about it. Um, I think it's unfortunate that it's being coupled with the tax discussion at the same time, because I think, um, it's really cheery and happy to think about lowering taxes, but I think we do need to really focus on the efficiency of our waste management and the potential there. So, um, I do caution all who sees this as a hip hip hooray moment for lowering taxes and making sure that we do focus on what we need to. Um, so with that, I wanna ask about the vacancy rate. You talked about HR, um, is doing some active recruiting on the radio. What's been the problem as to why the vacancy rate has grown and has stayed steady vacant for this long? I think part of it is making sure that we have an available pool of qualified people. Um, not everybody goes out... And I have the same issue really in the sewer program, is not everybody goes out thinking that's gonna be their career path. And so we have to get people thinking about managing our resources, managing waste as a career path to get more qualified people to apply for the positions. But once we get people in the positions, I think we're having a hard time with turnover. We have a very high turnover rate. My opinion is that the job is physically quite demanding as it is today. Um, as we move to the single stream opportunity, I believe the job will become more attractive for more people. I mean, ideally, you'd have a job that would be body neutral. Anybody could do it, any size person. Uh, right now that's not the case. It's a very physically demanding job and y'all have watched these folks out picking up the trash. I mean, they have to lift and move an awful lot of material, particularly around recycling because the truck does not handle the glass. In the future though, we can put one person in there and automatically pick that up with the rest of the rosy. I think that's gonna help our turnover. We're also working with HR on improving our testing process to get people in that are qualified. Um, they go through a lot of trouble to bring us candidates and then in the end, that person may be not appropriate, not, not really be qualified for the job. So we're trying to make sure that what we're using is a way to qualify people, the testing, the advertising. We bring in people of the caliber and skill set that we need. Mm-hmm. And that once they're there, we give them a safe job, a good day's pay for a good day's work, and we can retain them. Because both are problems, getting qualified candidates and retaining them. So why are... Why s- such a high turnover? Is it because of the... Are they having injuries or- Injury is a piece of it. Okay. I think some people find the job as physically more demanding than they expected. It's very difficult sometimes. Um, so I... We're still analyzing that, but those are two of the top reasons I think. Um, just that the job is not what they expected when they get there. And we have other issues. Certainly every area has issues with discipline and that sort of thing, but that's not the top reason. It's, it's mostly that people come in and the job is not suited for them. So... Are we limited on the way that we can advertise or market it? So can we, throughout the community, have little small gatherings that educate people about- You know, what a waste management worker does, what they're qualified to do, that sort of thing, get 'em oriented with the truck. Are we allowed to do those sorts of things with, um, hiring? I think so. I, I know that we're gonna do advertising on the radio, which is a little bit of a, it's a, it's an upgrade to what we've done in the past to try to get the word out to more people who might be interested. Um, we certainly offer information if people call in about what's it take to get a commercial driver's license. All of that's pretty much online now. You study and can take a test. I had, I hadn't talked with anyone at HR about, you know, trying to recruit literally. Uh-huh. But I think it's a good idea. Okay. You know, we talk about green jobs and promoting green jobs, and I mean, this is a green job in my book. It's, it's waste management and it's resource recovery and there's a lot of opportunity in that, so. Okay. I think there are good ideas that we could probably use that we may not have used in the past. Okay. Um, well, uh, I look forward to some creative, maybe some creative ways to recruit, because I think the folks are definitely out there. Um, 'cause our unemployment rate in certain areas of town are extremely high. Mm-hmm. Um, and we need all the help we can get. Um, curious about your capital investment plan. Um, I know that we've talked about the trucks and the things we already know about, the MRF equipment, maybe potentially in, in a new MRF area or something like that. What about the capital investment plan for five to 10 years out? Um, I'm a bit concerned, um, that if we lower at this, eh, we lower at this point before we clearly know what that capital investment plan is for trucks, equipment, or whatever else we need, um, that we may be shorting ourselves five to 10, 15, 20 years down the road, and we need to be, do some future planning. So do you have a plan for everything you're gonna need? It's still being refined, but the, but the plan we have right now go, for at least the next five years projects the equipment replacement needs that we have, and we expect to need somewhere between four and $5 million a year primarily for equipment replacement. And that's a lot, but each one of these vehicles is about $300,000. And we're hoping and planning over the next five years to reduce the total number of trucks it takes to pick up the same amount of waste. And that's the combination of the GPS GIS routing program. Uh, we, we waste time and fuel, uh, backtracking now or sending two trucks out on a route. One'll go out and the next one will have to come get the glass. We do have a few areas where we have to send a separate glass truck. And we think in the future we can do with less vehicles. Um, and so that's the main capital investment. Now the other idea that we've brought before the council and haven't vetted yet, we're still working on the cost benefit ratio analysis, is do we wanna add a new materials recycling facility? Mm-hmm. And building a building is certainly expensive in capital. So that is an option that's kind of floating on the side. The way we've projected, that would be a separately funded item. So that one is not included in our forecast at this point. So a new MRF facility would not be included in that 26 million that you talked about? That's operating now. That's operating. Right. And then a capital plan for most primarily vehicle replacement, um, and some equipment replacement as needed would be part of, um, that four to $5 million a year. When will that- Ongoing. When will that capital investment plan be complete? Well, it's, it's close now and that, uh, the capital investment plan now, it is for the fleet is already done. I didn't bring it with me today, but I can give you a copy of that. Does that include replacement every seven to eight years? Yeah. Um, I did get a question about why are these new vehicles have a little shorter lifespan than the old ones, and it's because the new vehicles do the work that the human body did in the old ones. Right. And there's a lot of hydraulics. Those arms pick up those ca- and they wear out a little faster rate based on industry information that we have. Sure. We certainly are gonna try. We have trucks now that are well past 10 years old. Um, and they're still working, so, but that's an industry estimate. Seven to eight years on a new vehicle. So in your opinion, how do we figure in capital investment with the Urban Services Fund? Are you only looking at it from the operating standpoint and so are we not factoring capital investment in the projections as we think about lowering the tax? We're supposed to see those things separate. We're actually planning the operating costs and then we're planning capital, and certainly we have the Urban Services Fund balance available now to help us infuse capital, especially as we get started. But the challenge I think we have in waste management, and, and it may be because my background, most of my life I worked in industry. And in industry, the challenge year after year is give a lower cost product, better quality, increase customer satisfaction, get the shareholder up. Um, so that's normal for me in a business operation. And I think the challenge is going to be keep an eye on the ball as, as we decide we want more things, more capital invested in waste, we're gonna have to generate good ideas to fund that. And so we're, we are planning some fairly significant efficiency improvements. With the initial investments we're making, that essentially opens the door for us to continue to make more, more efficiency improvements over time. I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but- So- We're planning operating capital of four to five million a year, and then over time, the way we would offset any increases in capital investment would be to increase our revenue through recycling, reduce our fuel costs, reduce the number of trucks we need to buy. Right now, we're projecting same number of trucks, but if we can get more efficient, I might need five or 10 less trucks two years from now than I do today. So we're looking at offsetting any increases by improvements in our efficiency and operation. And that's pretty normal industry look. It's probably not as normal maybe in the waste management side of the house, but that- that's a business and we run it like an operation. So the plan ... So ... And- and I do understand that- that private sector does a lot of that, that you- you base your capital investment based on the revenues that you have. Um, and there's like a part of my brain that feels like that that makes a whole lot of sense. Um, and then you think about the fact that you have a dedicated fund to take care of something that has to be done. Waste management has to be done, and it has to be done in an efficient way. We get more calls about waste management through our Lex call system than we get about anything else, so it needs to be nearly perfect, um, in the eyes of our constituency, I think. Um, so that's where my questions are kind of bleeding and- and I ... It sounds a bit risky, um, when you talk about service that we're providing to our constituency to say, you know, "Let's hope that the revenue comes in to take care of the capital investments that we think that we might need, that we'll only be able to get if the revenue comes in." So I ... Well, there's some prediction to all this. And- and the revenue coming in combined with the improvements in operating efficiency should give you better service, and that's wh- ... We don't want service to deteriorate in any way. In fact, we have a lot of ideas how we could improve and expand service. We get a lot of questions about waste streams that currently we don't have a system for, the household hazardous waste, pharmaceuticals has- has come to people's attention, organics, and we're experimenting with a lot of those right now. What can we do? Like, for example, you got us started with Seed Leaf program. We are collecting organic material from 10 restaurants downtown. We have 10 more that have signed up and we're looking for ways to reuse that. So there's a lot of things going on on the side that could contribute in the future to us having more revenue generated from what currently is a waste and make it into a resource. Okay. So all of that's going on in parallel and there is a little bit of prediction about that, and- and there's always a little bit of risk if you're looking into the future. Okay. But I feel comfortable that we have very capable people to manage this program, and we will deliver efficiency improvements that will offset that. Okay. So then going to your slide that talks about what really needs to happen, so talking about filling the vacancies, um, that ... I mean, that's a substantial amount of vacancies, and are you ready to bring those forward? Um, you know, and what do we need to do to help make sure that those things happen because there's a whole lot of times I think around this horseshoe that we say, "We need ... The end result is this," but then when it ... Between the point A and point Z, other things happen and we have to sometimes get off track and off task and then it changes where the Z point is, and sometimes A to Z changes to A to M because we just can't do it. So I'm wondering, you know, the filling the vacancies, what aggressive actions do we need to make- happen to make sure that those things- that those vacancies are filled if they're part of the plan in order to bring in the revenue that's necessary? If a new MRF is necesa- necessary for the revenue, what do we need to do? What do we need to commit as a council to make sure that we get to that point? Do you see where I'm going with it? Well, we are working closely with HR, including today and yesterday and ... I mean, constantly on this, uh, vacancy issue, and we're making a lot of progress. Uh, we have a generalist in our department who is doing a really good job of helping us get caught up. Um, I think we're continuing to negotiate with HR on how we can expedite some of these things and at- at this point, I think we're going about as fast as we can go. Hmm. Um, I think that a- as we continue to look into the future, we're gonna have to be a little quicker in our shop about how we turn around, um, which roles are most critical, which needs to go first. Uh, HR has asked us to prioritize those and we're in the process of doing that. So I think we're starting to move forward and hopefully, those vacancies will be improved. Uh, the other piece I mentioned is, um, some of the ideas around trying to get more qualified candidates on the list, and there may be some ideas that council members would have there. How can we recruit more people? And, you know, there's ... It's a time when lots of people talk about, you know, wanting new jobs and needing a job. We have them. We- we just need to get the right skill sets in place to get people into the jobs. Okay. So hopefully, ideas, maybe you can help us with that recruiting piece. Okay. Another thing we talked about briefly was the zero waste mission. Yeah. And how a lot of, you know, the acceptance and the buy-in towards zero waste helps to get us towards this ultimate goal of where you actually have revenues generated by recycled materials or whatever. W- we may need a poke or a prod, um, on council to remind us as things come forward. You know, we need to fill this vacancy or we need to do this towards zero waste or towards the mission where we are able to feel comfortable with the lowering of this tax, so I'm- I'm gonna put that on you a little bit to ... Similar to the consent decree, when we have things ... New business items that come forward and it's noted, "Consent decree," to remind us, we really need ... There's an ultimate goal here. I think the same thing should be the same with waste management and the urban services fund. So I probably have gone over my time asking all my questions, but, um, I ... You know, I'm very passionate about urban services fund and waste management for some reason that I don't understand yet, um, but I appreciate you responding. Thanks. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Council Member James, thank you for your comments. They were, um, a lot of my own feelings were expressed. I have a real hard time when I hear things like, "We're still working on a plan and we're, we feel like it's gonna increase efficiency and et cetera." And, and first of all, uh, Commissioner Taylor, you know I'm a big fan of yours and the work you've done and are doing, and, um, I think waste management is one of the most critical basic services that we deal with, especially with environmental issues and all that. Um, but when we talk about we're looking at possibly going to fee-based, um, garbage, rather than the property, flat property tax, people saying, you know, "Why is my garbage more expensive than somebody else's?" Et cetera. And so that's been examined by the, by the council, and when we talk about rolling back a tax by 10%, and nobody wants to give taxpayers a break more than I do and give back all we can. And who knows? Maybe it's more than that we can give back. I don't know. But at the end of the day, we're also facing the issue with the payroll, um, problems, and it was recommended that we use some of these, uh, property tax ad- verum, taxes to pay for that, and we have no clue, as far as I know, we have an estimate of what the consultant's gonna cost at 600,000, but we don't know what other kinds of obligations we're gonna have once we figure all that out. And the mayor recommended that we use these kinds of taxes, that they were part of a services, just like putting gas in the garbage truck, so we don't have that information, and to take a step to roll back taxes by 10% when we don't have a lot of information and you're speculating, and, and I trust your, your instincts and your knowledge, but it is speculation, as to how much more efficient it will be and how we'll be saving. And so all this is down the line, and as Council Member James mentioned, um, the, um, you know, what is our future plan? What, what, where are we going? So I know that's several questions and mostly, um, might've been just comments, but I'm very uncomfortable with this at this time for the above reason. And one more thing. One reason we may have trouble, uh, recruiting and retaining waste management workers is not just safety and it's hard work, but what are we paying 'em? That's true. So. Let me address some of your concerns about predicting the future. I think to a degree those are reasonable concerns, which is why rather than proposing a 20% reduction now, that would go in place, I said on the front end, we're talking about a 10% reduction now, then we'll evaluate a year from now and see if the projected savings do in fact occur. I'm reasonably confident they will, but there's no guarantees in life that they will see those savings. Having another year's worth of experience will give us the ability to make a more informed decision with the second phase of this next year. We talked extensively, and every conversation I had with Commissioner Taylor about this 10% was she was confident she could save that now just on operating efficiencies we knew we could achieve. So I'm very comfortable with the 10% we're talking about now. Next year, we'll have the benefit of seeing how far we are in terms of addressing the vacancies, in terms of getting the capital investments made that need to be made, and then we'll be in a posis- position to either reduce the property tax if we decide to pursue the property tax or alternatively, if the council prefers to do a fee, um, we'll have added information that will enable us to set that fee as low as possible. Um, I still am really very uncomfortable. We can roll it back in six months after some of this, but in my experience- No, no we can't. That's the problem. We ha- if we're gonna roll the property tax back, we have to do it between now and September 14th or thereabouts. Now is the time for us to adjust our property taxes. We cannot do that in six months. If we don't do it within the next three weeks, we can't do it until next year, because the property tax bills have to be processed through the state. Okay. Um, I thought that imply- applied to an increase, but that being said, we still have these outstanding issues of what are our payroll obligations gonna be once the, um, there's a balance, and it's been my experience, we're talking about a new recycling center and what it's gonna cost, and since I've been on the council, it's been my experience that whatever you think it's gonna cost, we better add 30 to 40% by the time we do, uh, change orders and, uh, oh, we didn't figure that in, or there's a... ... engineering problem or whatever. I mean, so far every project's kinda been a whole lot more than it set out to be, every capital project since I've been observing this. And so we roll this back with a major capital project with the recycling center, et cetera, on the, on the table. And you know, Mayor, I'm sure you will agree, we often run into those projects end up costing a whole lot more. And so- Right. ... uh, you know, and maybe next year we can give 'em 20% or 25%. Maybe it'll go even better than we thought and give 'em a 30% break. But to do that right now with a major capital project such as the recycling center, which probably is gonna cost considerably more than we think it is, and with the payroll situation and that problem staring us in the face and we have no clue what our obligation's gonna be there, it seems very irresponsible at this point to roll back these taxes. And that's just what I have to say. And, and again, I applaud the, the energy you have for giving, cutting taxes to the taxpayers and nobody wants to do that any more than I do, but I wanna do it responsibly and know where we are and how much things are gonna cost. Thank you, Mayor. I'm very confident in the projections we've made for the next year and if I'm as confident next year with where we are as I am this year, then I'm, I'm quite comfortable in saying 10% will be on the table next year if we still have the property tax. Council Member Hinson. Thank you, Mayor. I, well, Commissioner, you and I have met with the Director of Solid Waste, and I'm not opposed to rolling the tax back. I think it's a great idea and if we have a fund balance of 30 million or whatever, then, um, I think it's a very, very, extremely high cushion. But, um, I do have some concerns about waste management. I think our sys- our city is, um, not clean in a lot of areas. I think there's places that we can improve, and I know, you know, we've talked about this and some education programs maybe. I would love to see the street sweeping expanded. And, um, I know that I've been told we have one truck in this entire city that picks up mattresses, and I see mattresses every day. Um, but I, in addition to just like being everybody's mother and picking up after them, I do think we need some education. But I, I was really hoping that we can get some things like that going. Well, um, I think education is definitely something that we can always do a better job with. We, we do only have one person, they call her the Herbie cop, Ms. Charlotte, but she is our enforcement officer for waste and we have one person for the whole city. And although it was just a... I'll kind of whip through some of these things. One of the bullet points I had down here was to create a system for enforcement there. And that goes hand in hand with education. You know, one thing we need to do is educate people and then we also need the opportunity to hold them accountable at a certain point. And that's really not in place either right now. Um, we have some real limits on what we're able to do when someone le- puts things out at an inappropriate time or leaves them out inappropriately. We have to go in and give a warning and then we have to wait 48 hours, do it again, and wait 48 hours and do it again. So a person effectively gets a week to get something picked up and then we, by that time, usually service the area. So in the meantime, their neighbors have to see something laying on the curb. Um, so we think there needs to be some improvement in that piece. We also, um, are trying to do, a little later today we'll actually on Mayor's announcements, have programs that are targeted for children in neighborhoods, also schools so that our future citizens will be a little smarter about this than we are. Um, and then any other opportunities that you have, want to share about education, we'd be happy to hear it. We, we have a partnership now with, uh, Bluegrass Pride and the Waste Busters program. That's been very robust. Um, we have 170 volunteer businesses and, uh, apartments that are members now, and they hold their, uh, folks to a standard in their operations. So we have a long way to go and I know that, but we also have a pretty healthy start in education and we have, we're very open to any expansion of that that you'd like to add. And then I personally would like to see some enforcement strategies put in place, because people that don't do their share wind up costing everybody else money. And f- I think that's one of the tricks in improving our efficiency, is not having to go over and over and over to a place where people continue to put things out inappropriately. So that's a great opportunity too. See, I, I guess I see, um, as a, it's an investment. It's an investment in our city because if you have an area of town that has, um, a lot of trash, I think it really hurts our property values. That's not fair to me. It's not fair to my neighbors, other people that live in the area. And, and then it just, it falls on the city, because if my property value is decreasing, the city is also hurting. So, I really think -- I would really like to see some changes happen quickly , especially with bulk items and, um, and I would be more than happy to help and would love to help organize some education programs with children and have some in the works actually in the 11th District. But, um, when it comes to ... I would like for ... If you maybe could drive through my district some- Mm-hmm. ... and take a look and I mean, I'd be glad to ride with you and we could take a look at some problem areas that I feel like can be corrected given the cr- right attention. Thank you. Okay. Council member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Commissioner Taylor. Um, I have a couple of questions. Um, on your programmatic trends, when you did your projections out, you mentioned here fuel costs doubled between '05 and '08. How did you project fuel costs in your mod- For the future? Um, I think it was 25%. Brad, you- . ... plateau after that. Can- can you come to the microphone please? Sorry. Brad's the numbers brain. Brad Stone is our new administrative, uh, officer in Department for Environmental Quality. Oh, welcome. Hello. Uh, I don't have the numbers on the exact dollar figures on fuel but anecdotally I remember that for the period that's in the presentation they did go up dramatically but they've since sort of plateaued back down just like you experience with your private automobile so- So do you know what was built into the projections to come up with the future? I do not. I'd have to- I thought it was 25. I'm sorry? I thought we said, I think it was 20. Let us check that before I- I mean, if- if- ... before I guess. I think it was 25%- Yeah, this- ... increase when we did those numbers but I can't guarantee that till we check. I- I would presume waste management's a big consumer of fuel. Yes. So, uh, if we're talking about possibly rolling back this tax, it seems to me we would want to know, you know, feel fairly comfortable at least using industry standards and some of the things that are out there to know what we're looking at for the future and I know it's a little unpredictable. Definitely is. Um- I think one of the big challenges that, that we have but one of the opportunities is we, we spend a lot of fuels on miles that we didn't need to drive. That's the part that I'm hoping even if the fuel goes up, we'll reduce the total number of miles that we needed to drive to pick up the material so that'll offset it. Did I understand you, in thinking about fuel, did I understand you to say we would be looking at the UPS model or did I make that up? Uh, you know, they've- Well, I mentioned UPS and FedEx. Okay. I mean they've been using models since the 8- early '80s, uh, on routing and they use GPS in the, in the vehicles and they use a rugged tablet in the front of the vehicle so that you can actually route people. You know, one simple thing you can do is make a lot of right hand turns. Right. You know, if you route yourself that way. The program that we've been working with IT, we've, we've narrowed down to two top candidates and finally settled on one. This week we have conference calls with them on a few final details and hope to bring that project forward to council in the next week or two. Why- I'll talk to you about that, but that could be a huge savings. I think UPS has saved a tremendous amount of money and, uh, enjoyed efficiencies in the no left turn policy. Well, and often now when we have a service issue where we need to send an extra truck out, um, a lot of that's handled by phone or radio and in the new world you'll be able to reroute and find the closest vehicle, route them over and that, again, reduces your amount of mileage and fuel. Now, uh, council member James asked a lot of questions about the capital, and I think I heard you say that you had projected out five years for, did you say for truck expenditures for replacements? Our primary, our primary ongoing expenditure is going to be for trucks, equipment. Okay. Now, in this list of, on page, it's ... I guess it's page 12 of the actual PowerPoint, our immediate needs? Yes. Where it lists vehicle replacement, MRF equipment etc., etc. Mm-hmm. Now, did I understand that all of these are built into the model and it for, um, capital expenditures and if they are, how far out did you go with these? These are all built in, um, and the first one of course was the adopted budget for 2010. You've already, um, put into the budget, uh, opportunity for us to replace several vehicles, qu- actually a pretty good chunk next year. That's why you saw that capital bar so large next year. But ongoing it would be a predictable number of vehicles and that's ... The first year is, uh, pretty heavy and then after that you would see that drop down to a, a turnover of vehicles every year and I can't remember the total number but it's somewhere around, what, 20, 20-something vehicles a year. So in projecting the need for a certain amount of money for the, to fund this so- because we're talking about whether to decrease a tax or not, how far out did you go? Five years. Okay. Is that ... Are the capital expenditures in, in your model, did you plug in debt service or how did you figure them? The, the one thing that's not in that model that we have discussed, and certainly haven't decided on, but you've given me permission to purchase the property, is if we decide we wanna build a new MRF. And I think that, as a city, if we decide we want to build a new MRF, that project needs to stand on its own two feet, as far as the benefits and, and revenue that it provides versus the cost that it's gonna take. So we'll need to do a cost-benefit ratio analysis. I haven't done that yet, because we just got the data from the GBB report about three weeks ago, and we're still reviewing that data. But I think that it, that's the one project we've discussed that is not in that five-year forecast. Everything else here is, is on there, and in fact is already funded for fiscal year 10, the vehicle replacement, the new MRF equipment you all just funded in '09. The GPS GIS is the one I have to bring to you. Um, that's less than two minutes, about a $1.6 million project. That one's in there. And then the paper sorting efficiency, that gets, um, dealt with within the MRF equipment. And then the one person, adding a person is to be determined. Um, that, that position has been recommended, but I would think that that position probably wouldn't be needed for several months, so... And the, and that's just one position, so I don't think that's gonna... I think that, that certainly is included in the forecast. That's not capital. And, and so did you build in debt service or did you build in full cost of some things? Because there's a question back here on, um, page, um, 20 of the PowerPoint that says, "Should upcoming projects be paid for with existing fund balance?" So I'm not sure. I was just trying to figure out, are we talking about debt service or are we talking about building in full cost of some items? Well, we, I guess from the background I came from, whenever you had the money to pay for something, you paid for it instead of putting it in bonding or, or paying a fee to borrow money to do that. And we're planning on using the revenue that we have to go forward to do the big vehicle replacement. We're planning on four to five years, $4 or $5 million a year in capital, primarily for equipment, but we didn't plan in debt service for any additional projects. At this point, the additional project on the table that really hasn't been completely analyzed is the new MRF, and we have to make sure that that is going to pay out. Um, the new MRF, of course, could include an education, education center, and it could also include household hazardous waste management, so there's some things in that project that are not in this projection at this time. So I didn't, I didn't count debt service because I didn't plan on a, a debt. We were using cash. So is that the answer to the question in slide 20? I guess we were gonna use cash in order to purchase things in, through 2015. I, I mean, I- I think it's, I'm not sure I'm answering your question, but- That's fi- ... try, try me again if I didn't. Sorry. I, I think you probably are. Um, I mean, I came into today with a pretty, a pretty, um, friendly, um, pretty friendly thinking toward, uh, lowering this tax, but now I'm not so sure, if we don't have the MRF expenditures built in, whether, whether it would be really wise to do that. That is just what I'm thinking off the top of my head, and I go back to your second slide that says at this point, data's very preliminary and that it needs to be refined in the next four to six months. So I'm a little tiny bit uncomfortable, uh, with a new MRF facility where we really haven't projected out the costs for that. So thank you very much for your presentation. Council Member Lake. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, first I'd just like to say I don't get many complaints about the pickup of garbage, so I think that overall we're doing a very good job in, uh, collecting the garbage. My, uh, concern has always been about the cost, and, um, I, I thought maybe today I'd play the role a little bit of a devil's advocate, throw a couple other ideas out here. Um, but first, I'd just like to say that I think you're doing a great job, and I know you put a lot of effort into your presentation today, and it's very obvious, and I know you've been working hard to analyze everything. And I also want to say I know it's very, very difficult, because even though we've got our new accounting system, it's still not where it needs to be, and it's very difficult to pull the numbers and analyze your actual cost and all that. But having said that, um, I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here just for a second and say, well, first off, I'd like to say I think that our solid waste department was mismanaged for a couple of decades, and that we had a lot of money rolling in there, and there wasn't any issue to be efficient and to manage it as well as we could. And I think you're really addressing that issue now, and I wanna thank you for that effort. Um, you know, the, the number one problem I have is that it's not an, an equitable system and that we are assessing the fee for garbage collection based on the appraised value of somebody's house, and not really on the service that they're receiving. So, um, although I'm gonna vote for the 10% reduction in the fee today, I would really like to vote for 100% reduction in the fee, uh, in the tax, and, and go to a straight fee system and, and put it on a, on a, on a better basis. And I, I guess you could say that maybe doing the 10% reduction today is sort of like a Band-Aid. ... and I think we need major surgery and restructuring how this department's operated. Um, and, uh, the other thought that I had today too is that, you know, we haven't had a lot of time, although we've been looking at this over a period of time, and this, uh, i- issue about dropping the tax came up pretty quickly, but I just went to Indianapolis and I pulled up their fees over there, and if I read the numbers correctly, uh, they charge about $9 to pick up solid waste once a week and they charge an additional, uh, 5.95, I think too, uh, if you wanna recycle because they don't have as an aggressive recycling program here. So it's, uh, maybe just a few of the people who are doing the recycling there. But that's still much cheaper because if you divide the number of homes that we serve by the amount of money we're collecting, I think it maybe comes out to ... Here again, the data is a little bit sketchy so it's hard to analyze this, but somewhere around $23, $24 a month for the average, uh, fee if you divided it that way. The other thing, if you look historically at the number of employees, we had about 200 employees in 1999 and we got about 200 employees now, but in that period of time, we've bought, um, you know, automated, um, trucks that really eliminate a lot of ... They were labor saving devices to save the heavy duty work, uh, to pick up the, uh, garbage. And I also looked under our statistics, the, uh, amount of annual tons collected from, uh, 2002 to 2009 has been, um, a 14% increase, which is about 2% a year increase. Whereas our revenues have been going up at a rate of maybe 8 to 10% a year. So we're getting more money in than we're, you know, increasing our services. And we also, as you recall, uh, dropped from two pickups a week to one pickup a week, which is a big cost saving service for us too. So I still think there's a lot of things that we could do to, you know, to make things better. Um, what I would like to see us do is maybe drag out the old study. Uh, I don't r- remember how much we paid for it, but something like it was about 100 grand- Yeah, I have it. ... and dust it off, and maybe present it back to the council members so that some of the new people on the council would have the benefit of, of that input, uh, and, and see w- see where that's coming from. But having said all this, uh, you know, I think we do need to do something. I think 10% is, um, not enough as far as I'm concerned, but I, I'm, you know, definitely will start out with a 10% vote on that today. And, um, you know, I wondered if, um, you know, you thought, have you given any thought about, you know, bringing the, uh, previous study that was done and presenting it to counsel? Have you considered doing that yet or would you be willing to bring that forward and let the current council members ... 'Cause that'll give them a historical perspective of where we've come so far in this, in the solid waste area. The study, I became familiar with that, um, I guess it came out in November of '06, and I started here December of '07 and saw the study not too long after I got here, and actually it was part of the management partners audit. They brought the study back out because they were really, they, they were looking at the waste system and trying to figure out what's the best way to go forward and so they used that study to make some of the recommendations that they did. So I've kind of looked at it from first the original and then the refined study with that. So, you know, we can certainly come and talk about what those options were. I think Council Member Stennet was, um, expecting some of that discussion in budget and finance too, so. Well, I, I think your management approach, uh, has been exceptional and, you know, trying to look at how to make it more efficient and, I mean, using, uh, technology to help us out and, you know, putting in the, the things that'll save us a lot of money in the long haul. Mm-hmm. Uh, so I would, I would encourage you to keep up, um, keep the pressure up. Now, and in closing, I'd like to say I'm not concerned about, uh, the 10% inc- uh, decrease in, uh, revenues because I feel like we have plenty of money in there. Uh, I mean, worst case scenario, if we needed to bond something, you know, we've got money that we could do that with, and we do have a lot of cash surplus so I, I, and I feel like, uh, you know, we're gonna have additional increases in revenue too as, 'cause we're building more houses here, so I think we'll be fine. Thank you. Council Member Wallace. Thank you, Ma'am. Um, I'd like to, um, join Council Member Hinson, um, I would invite Council Member Lane, I'm glad that you don't have any garbage pickup issues in your district. However, if you're in the third district, and several others, um, it's a nightmare, and Charlotte Turley, Officer Turley is one of the greatest gifts to this city, but she's one person. We could u- use one person in the UK area dealing with people leaving their herbies, et cetera out, mattresses on the sidewalk, couches that are burned by the street, and they have to have the, they only have the one special truck to pick them up because of OSHA regulations and the bedbug infestation. Um, and so rather than roll back when we don't know what it's gonna cost, what the capital expenditures are gonna be, what the service savings are gonna be, and without doing something to the neighborhoods where property owners are really suffering because they're living with this kind of- You know, there are areas that could use twice-a-week pickup, and there are areas that don't need it. And additionally, that this is based on, um, gas prices staying neutral. If you all can predict that, you're in the wrong business, and I'd like to see your crystal ball. We don't know. In six months, they could be $4 a gallon again. So, u- uh, I think this is a, a very flawed plan, and especially since we're looking at going to fee-based pickup and examining that issue to roll it back 10%, and then we go to fee-based, and some people, their fees are gonna go higher maybe than what they're doing now, and some will go lower. So, um, this makes for good reading, I suppose, in the paper, but it's really, um, I think irresponsible at this point, when we've got all these projects on the line, and we are facing the payroll issues that we're facing t- to do this. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Any further questions for Council Member Taylor or for Commissioner Taylor? Get up there. It's your city. All right, Commissioner O'Mara, if you'll step up. Thank you, Mayor. Um, we, uh, distributed a, a packet of information, but really there's... I just wanna draw your attention to just a few pages, and I think I'm... Okay. Um, page II, which is, uh, um, third page in, i- is just a recap of what we presented, uh, last week, which are the, uh, statutory di- guidelines or deadlines that we have to meet in order to, um, set the property tax rates for this year. Uh, this will put 'em in place for a October distribution of property taxes and which are due by December 31st of each year. Uh, the next page talks about the general services fund, and it goes through the, uh, the rates. Um, the first option talks about if we adopt the same rate as last year, and at the very b- which lists all the different rates, and then the impact, uh, against the 2010 budget. And so that very last line down at the bottom, impact on fund balance would be $5,380. Option two is adopting, uh, a rate that would give us the same dollar amount as last year. Uh, and then option three is the 4% maximum that House Bill 44 puts into place, uh, which is the highest rate that the council can adopt, and, um, option one is, is what we're recommending today. Um, the next page is the same analysis for the urban services fund, and so, uh, um, w- with a, a nuance with the rollback pr- uh, uh, presentation, the, the first option is the, the same rates as last year, uh, and that would have an impact against the 2010 budget of a million dollars. Uh, then if we adopted a 10% reduction in refuse only and kept the rest the same as last year, uh, that would be a decrease of 3.8 million from the 2010 budget. And then if we went to the maximum rate allowable under law, uh, that would be a positive of 162,600. And the middle one, option two, is, is what we've been talking about, uh, uh, this evening. And just for clarification, underneath that graph I have two option twos. That's a typo. Um, it's option one, option two, and the second option two, uh, matches option three up in the, um, in the schedule, so sorry for the mistake there. Um, the next page is reference information, and, and I won't go through all of it, but I would just highlight, um, that, um, the re- real estate assessment information that we got, uh, uh, at the end of last week, uh, shows that there was an increase of about a, uh, 1.5% over last year. Uh, that's 1.2% from new, uh, properties, properties that were not on the rolls last January 1st, and only a .3% due to, uh, comparable or, or, uh, uh, properties that were on the rolls, uh, last year. And, and that, um, i- is a reflection of our current economic times. Back in, further into the book, there's a history of it, but, um, we have been enjoying, um, six, seven, 8% increases in total assessment. That went down to 4.4 last year. Uh, we budgeted it to go down another 2.2. Instead, it came in at, uh, 1.5. Um, and then the final point that I would, uh, point to you is the final bullet on that page, and our, um, not-so-good news in the, the lack of growth in total assessments, um, is mitigated, uh, by the fact that it affects how much we have to pay the library, and so we are actually, uh, going to be, uh, paying them about 630,000 less than what was originally budgeted because of the lower assessments than what was in the original budget. Any questions for Mr. O'Mara? Well, it must be a little after 6:00 here, so, uh... So -- so this was presentation purposes only? That's right. Ma- This -- there is a lot of information here that you probably will need to digest. And as you can see from the, uh, timetable, we will have some other opportunities to talk about it. Mayor, can I ask Mr. Mayor a question? Councilmember Gordon. Could you go over what you said, that last -- with the bullet about the library and what you're... Yes, hopefully I can word it properly. Uh, within our budget, um, is five c- five cents per hundred dollars of our general fund property taxes is dedicated to the, um, to the library. So when we build the budget for our total net proceeds from those, we -- we project out what we think the assessments are gonna be and the rate minus what we are expecting to pay the library. So we'd ass- we -- we had projected about 2.5% increase in assessments and only came in at 1.5. So our total revenue is less than what we thought it would be, but so is the amount we had budgeted as an expense to pay the library. And so that was a good news/bad news for depending on who you are in that, um, process. Councilmember Lane. So. Uh, we're obviously gonna have to put this on the docket at some point. What -- what's the timeframe for that? Th- that's on page, uh, II. As you'll see, we're, uh, today at the 18th. We'll have some more discussion next week and the following week, which will be September 1st. And, uh, at the September 1st work session, we'll have a proposal that will be part of the docket for the September 3rd council meeting. And then we'll give it fi- second reading on September 17th. Councilmember Gordon. Uh, uh, thank you, Mayor. Bill, this isn't really a question for you, but I just had a thought that since we have a little bit of time before we have to, um, put this on the docket, a little bit of time, could, um, and this is directed toward our waste management water quality folks, could we get some, i- is there time for you to build into your model the costs of the MRF, which I believe you said were not built in, so that we can see a true cost, uh, true expenditures to give us a little better information for deciding on this cut in the tax? Just a thought. A lot of us, I think, are concerned that that's not built in. Yeah, I think we'd have to get certainly assistance from the budgeting folks. Most of these numbers are still coming through the budget office and we're starting to learn where everything is, but I think we could probably... I -- I think we can work together to- Yeah. ... come up with an estimate impact of -- of the, uh, debt service for -- for the MRF. And then, I mean, that -- that's not built in and then -- but you said that the operations are built in, in terms of... Operations in the capital that we anticipate on an annual basis, primarily equipment. That's- Okay, so that -- that would help me and that might help other people if you could come up with that. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Councilmember Gordon, I have another question, but rega-regarding what you just said, uh, was your... Were you asking for them to include debt service or were you asking them to just talk about cost and look at options of whether it'd be cash or debt service? 'Cause when Mr. Amara responded, he said, "Yeah, we can build in debt service," but I think you're saying- Any... I mean, nothing- ... the option. ... was built in, if I understood correctly, for the new MRF. Did -- did I understand that correctly? And so I would... For me to make an informed decision on whether to lower the tax or not, I would personally like to see what we think the cost of the MRF will be to... the impact on the revenues and how we're gonna build it in. If it's built in debt service or it's built in cash payment. I mean, I don't have a preference, but I think debt service probably is the more, more reasonable. But I think it needs to be built in to give us more information. I think in thinking about debt service, we have to actually, we also need to look at capacity. Yes. Because we can say all day long that we'll bond everything, but we know from past public projects how difficult it is and how th- we come up against that every single time. Um, so to kind of, you know, blanketly say, "Well, we'll just go ahead and bond it," um, we don't know what future councils will decide to do as far as their bond capacity. Well, and last week, I asked for a presentation on our bond capacity and debt service and what's going to be retired when, so I'm not sure when we're gonna hear that. Tuesday, in Budget and Finance. So that would be very helpful. Okay. Thank you. My other question had to do with the public hearing. Um, I guess, Mr. Amara, it's showing that it's on the 17th, which is the same exact day that we vote on it. Um, and unfortunately, um, or fortunately, um, I think council might need a little bit more time to hear from our constituency. And a lot of times once those public hearings happen, that's when we get the majority of the feedback. ... um, because people watch GTV3 and before then, there's not, unless you have neighborhood meetings and access to email, um, or if you just for fun, get on LFUCG.com, you don't really get to see that. So I'm, I'm wondering, I understand maybe we... You have to have that on that date. Can we have an additional public hearing worked into the schedule? Or can we move, bump that public hearing back to where we can actually have some time to think about what our constituents are saying? We could have a public meeting, I mean, a place for public comment. Excuse me, I, I was verifying. The... I think the state statute requires the public hearing after it has been advertised in the paper, so that, that's your, um, uh, the precursor for when we can have it. Mm-hmm. Now you can have a public meeting- We could- ... that isn't a hearing. I mean, I'm, I'm getting into... I wanna practice law here. There is a public hearing that is required by statute. It has to have, happen within a specific window and we're kind of... We don't have much room to maneuver on that. To the degree you wanna have a public meeting and invite comment about it at a work session or at a council meeting or at some other time, you could do that. I'd, I'd, I'd like to propose a, a dedicated meeting, um, not coupled with anything else. Um, that of course, would be optional to whether council members would want to be here or not. Um, where we could actually hear from our residents. Um, be willing to throw out a date, if anybody wants to do that. I can do that at this time, or I can wait until, um, our next meeting together. Ho- how about if we let the council administrator try to find a date that works best? That sounds great. There's several, um, folks who, who might want to participate that aren't here. Okay. And she can solicit their input. But, uh, um, Ms. Langston, if you could coordinate a time for us. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks. Council Member Step. Thank you, Mayor. Bill, do you have a, um, running total of how much over the last, say five, 10 years, the solid waste tax has contributed to the Urban Services Fund on a yearly basis? Did you calculate that by chance? That you can give the council? He probably has it. It is, um... One moment, please. Take your time. It, it is ranged between three and a half and $5 million. Per year? That's the running average? Okay, and then- And it, it's a function of payroll and, um, I'm not sure what else but- And then that's approximately how we got to the 24 million in the surplus fund, is averaging that, those numbers? I don't guess I understand- How, how did we get the $24 million surplus is my question. Well, um- How much each year are we averaging that, that goes into that surplus and how much have we been taking out? The, the surplus built up over the course of time. And, and I believe Commissioner Taylor had slides to address that, talking about, uh, a budget that had full complement of staff and yet we didn't obtain that, as well as erratic, uh, uh, capital expenditures. Right, so I, I guess my point is if they were only averaging three to five million over the last five years, that's how we get 24 million. So basically, we haven't taken out any money out of the capital fund in five years, correct? That is not correct, no sir. Okay 'cause so, can we, once again, can we get a chart year by year? How much in that budget year of surplus went into that fund balance? So we can see how that, how we got the 24 million. All right. And when money's been taken out of that and put back into the system. Mm-hmm. I think that would help clarify the, the current issue of the Urban Ther- Services fund balance. If we can get that information, that'd be great. And then on the second thing that Council Member Gordon asked about our bond service, um, I know we were preparing the agenda for the budget and finance meeting today, uh, for next Tuesday. And if you could, could give us just a summary of all the outstanding debt we have. I know, uh, Commissioner Co had a chart at one point, and then any anticipated bonding debt that we have not issued that we will be issuing in the next 12 months, uh, for Tuesday, that would be very helpful in our discussions once again for the next council meeting for sure. All right. Thank you. Council Member S- uh, Lawless. Thank you. Um, after realizing that the MRF and for those folks out there that don't know what MRF means, it's a materials recycling facility that we have been planning for and excited about. We talk about being, uh, green, responsible and trash free by 2020. And we've been saving this money so that we can do the MRF when we get the trucks that we're getting, that will better utilize that and that over time, we expect that we'll be able to do recycling that will, um save our community money and landfill and be a green community, which is part of what we heard over and over and over again in the 2040 destination studies. Um, now with this 10% rollback and this plan, the MRF facility is not in there and that is really frightening to me and Council Member James, yes, we keep talking about bonding, bonding, bonding and we're bonding this and bonding that. But at the end of the day, every time we bond something, our, um, bond capacity and our, goes down and our rates go up. We've got many projects going on with the South Limestone and the, um, Lyric and the, I mean, many, many really important projects. We have the money, we've saved it specifically for this reason. And Mayor, the, my understanding is you have been very supportive of that and I appreciate that, but now to lower the tax by 10%, it's no longer in our capital fund plan and would have to be bonded. And who knows if we're gonna be, in this economy, gonna be able to bond anything. So, that being said, I think the Murph issue, the recycling facility issue is huge, and we really need to hear about what that's gonna cost and why all of a sudden we're not paying cash when we've been saving for it. Our credit card is full. Council Member Jack. Thanks, Mayor. I just wanted to point out to Council Member Stenn and others that might be looking, one of, uh, Commissioner Taylor's slides addressed the inadequate capital investment and it has the chart year by year and it shows, um, from 2005, um, to the budget at 2010 budget, um, capital operating and personnel expense, and interestingly, I think the only year that w- looks like there was none was 2007 and maybe there was some, so much that the chart doesn't even really, there was maybe so little, chart doesn't reflect it. But it kinda shows where there was so little investment that, um, if you take the, the 2010 investment and kinda distribute it among, um, the 2005 through 2009, it kind of equals out, so it looks where it, where there was nothing in 2007 and a very teeny tiny, it looks like maybe, um, maybe one million or something for 2008, um, that's already here. So it sounded like that's what you were asking for, was the scale of capital investments and why did, why did it grow so large? Th- wasn't what you a- what did you ask? I asked for the year-by-year fund balance that was deposited into that urban services fund, so, you know, if it's three million in '06, four million in '07, how much fund balance we generated on a year-by-year basis over the last five or 10 years. And what does it, what does that answer to that get you? Well, it answers the fact that we're collecting too much revenue and then we haven't been spending it, there, thus the surplus. And if we're collecting more revenue than we need, then it would be a good in- indication that we need to lower the tax to match what we're really expending on solid waste. But if your argument is that we haven't been spending enough or maybe we need to be spending more than what we've currently been spending, that's great. That's a valid argument too. I just wanna see, based on what we have been spending versus what we've really been collecting from the public, 'cause it goes back to what we all said is, if we're gonna collect a tax, we need to spend it on that item and apparently we haven't been spending it on what we should be spending it on if we have a $24 million surplus. Oh, and how do you define surplus? Surplus is $24 million that's in the account that has not been spent. So if something is, if you have in y- in a personal account, in a savings, you say that that's an additional surplus to something. You can call it whatever you want to call it. You can call it a savings, you can call it a fund balance. It is additional monies that have not been spent that have been collected by statute on a tax. And if there are plans for that in a particular division- Yes. ...if there is something that's gonna cost a substantial amount of money, I don't think that it's appropriate to call it a surplus when it has, um, something attached to it. So I think, you know, we're giving the wrong impression to anybody watching that we're just mounding up tons and tons of money and doing nothing, have no plans to do anything with it, and it's in- it's inappropriate to, to do that to this division that, for whatever reason, hasn't been able to have expenditures, um, for capital investments. And I'm sure that if we ask them to come forward and ask them why, they could give us a laundry list of reasons why, but now we do have the need for that and so I think it's, it's a little bit premature to start pulling from something when there's plans that things have been building up. It's, it's unfair to the division. Thanks, Mayor. Anything further for Mr. O'Mara? All right, that concludes the presentations, um, we're now ready to go to the council reports. All right. And I will, um, uh, I've got a scheduling problem where I need to leave here in about 10 minutes. I've got three people who are here to talk about issues that you all raised last week, you know, would there be any objection to my going ahead and getting them out and then going to council reports after that? All right. I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. I've got to leave in about 10 minutes. Uh, well, I have to be too. I have a brand new, uh, neighborhood association meeting at 7:00, so I need to leave too, so. All right, um, are we gonna have a quorum after about 10 minutes or so? Who, who, who else has to leave in 10 minutes or so? I have a neighborhood meeting. Okay. Yes. We're, we are, um, oh, really? Not here. Okay, we're gonna have a quorum problem here in about five or 10 minutes. Um, I guess we'll just go through the council reports as long as we can, then we'll pick up it next week where we go from there. Thank you, Mayor. Oh. Council Member Gordon, I guess. I'll be quick. Uh, first of all, congratulations and happy birthday to our esteemed Vice Mayor, thank you. He is, I think, 39 and holding - ... today, so happy birthday. We're glad you could be here. And, um- Still ambulatory. Still ambulatory. And then, um, uh, Council Member Myers and I, um, each have, um, a motion in regards to the inversions. And so I would like to yield 30 seconds of my time for him to make his motion first. Th- thank you. Um, I move that we ask the law department and the HR department to go ahead and start the blue sheet process and bring it to us next Tuesday to take the '08, um, fund balance and use it to fix the inversion issue that we talked about with the list that we have. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second to request the law department to bring a -- an inversion, um, blue sheet to us next Tuesday. Now, what I don't know is, Mr. Askew, yeah, the motion is for the law department to bring a blue sheet on the inversion issues for consideration next Tuesday. Do you have adequate time to get that done? All right, great. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no? Motion carries. And then my motion is simply to, uh, move that on Tuesday, I think this'll be possible, for us to have a written report. Um, I don't know that we need a presentation. I, I think I'll just say a written report on the, um, inversions, how many there are, how much the money is, and which one, uh, became inverted at what date. So moved. Second. Heard the motion. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppose, no? Motion carries. That concludes my report. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. My report is concluded. Council Member Stennet. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I know Charlie Martin's here. Could you give us an update on the Hamburg, uh, force main that, uh, you're... I wanna say a special thanks to all the folks i- in your shop, and Sanitary Sewers, and Commissioner Taylor, and everyone, uh, involved for working 18 hours over Saturday night to get that pump replaced, repaired, and, and all the work you all did to get that done. I know it's been a tough week out there, especially with school starting right next door, and, and, and raw sewage spilling through a, a creek. Uh, it, it's been tough. But, but you wanna give us an update on where we're at and, uh, the whole process? Uh, uh, uh, yes, I will. As, as you pointed out is that, that we were able to facilitate the repair and bring this pump station back in service at about 9:45 Sunday morning. Uh, during the duration leading up to that, we were able to contain this in a constructed pond up there where the break was at. Um, the real environmental risk was at 11 o'clock Saturday night, we had to turn the pump station off in order to be able to make the repair. And so in, in 13 hours, we were able to get that done and get it back in service. Over the last couple of days, we've been working with the state and erosion and sediment folks to start restabilizing that site, get it temporarily regraded. I know that, that Rod and others have talked to you about the final grade and, and working with our neighbors and our partners out there to get that into shape that, that would be expected on the part of the neighborhood. Um, but we... The worst of it is behind us now. We've been able to, uh, to get that site temporarily stabilized. And I was just reading back there, there is a plan in place to remove the contaminated dirt, or the sludge, and get it hauled out of there very soon. But we've got it out of the flood plane right now and secured. Um, you're right, there was a lot of people that helped out. Uh, you mentioned several of them, division of police, Kentucky-American, uh, good contractors. It was, uh, it was tough, but it was, it was a real thing to... It came together very nicely on, on Saturday night and, and Sunday morning that, um, most people didn't notice, which was good. Well, well, thank you for that update. I know there are plans to take this line off, off duty or put it out of service here in about 60... well, about 90 to 120 days. S- six months at the max. Is that right? Not entirely. The diversion line project, which would enable us to be able to take that line down and shut it down completely in the event of a future emergency, it will be done sometime by the end of this calendar year. But remember, some of the other temporary pump stations such as Gleaning- Gleneagles and whatnot, they still pump into that line. And so we still need to have flow going through it. And the expansion area two-way pump station or what we're calling the Hamburg one across the street needs to go in place in order to permanently eliminate that situation. But in clarity though is that once the diversion line is in place, if we have a similar break on that line, we can shut it down completely without losing sewage because we're... the flow that comes through those smaller stations are small enough that we could haul them and we could go into a different operation than just simply having to shut off a major pump station that when we turned that off at 11 o'clock on, uh, Saturday night was, had 3000 gallons a minute of sewage coming into it. That's difficult. We won't have that same problem six months from now. All right. Very good, Charlie. Thank you for the update. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm gonna try to stay as long as possible because I think your report has a presentation in it that I was... specifically requested, so I'll be brief. Um, it came to my attention, um, that the Citizen's Advocate Office was planning to do a two-hour mediation training for, uh, neighborhood leaders so that they would be then able to sit down with... ... people and mediate, um, neighborhood disputes between two parties. Um, I have grave, as a licensed clinical social worker and someone who's been a clini- clinician for many years, I have very grave, uh, concerns about this. Um, two-hour mediation training, first of all, I don't think it's our citizen's role to do this, and it is, um, I think very dangerous. So that's my thoughts on it. Uh, so I would like to refer that program to inter- the Intergovernmental Committee, uh, for examination and, um, ask that they- Intergov. ... ask that they do not do the program until, um, it has been examined by InterGov. I think we're placing ourselves in a very dangerous situation. Thank you very much. S- yeah, so moved. Second. I have a motion and second to refer the matter of the, um, citizen advocate to the Intergovernmental Committee. I would, uh, just note the citizen's advocate is an employee of the council as a whole and is supervised by the council, the whole, if, um- Correct. ... uh, that might expedite things for you. But nonetheless, that's motion is to refer it to intergovernmental. Um, any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no? Motion carries. Anything further? Uh, Council Member Henson? Thank you, Mayor. I guess I'll move approval of the Neighborhood Development Fund. Uh, pardon me, could you repeat your motion? I'm sorry. Sorry. My fault. Move approval of Neighborhood Development Fund. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. Council Member James. Thanks, Mayor. Um, last week, Council Member Blues, Lawless, and I participated in a meeting with, um, traffic engineering, parking authority, police department, and something else I read here I can't read, planning, um, and to talk about, uh, Short and 2nd Streets and the two-way project, two-way street project. And, um, one of the issues that came up had to deal with loading and unloading zones, um, in downtown areas, um, when streets are, um, go through conversion. So I'd like to, um, put into services committee, um, ordinances, um, relating to loading and unloading zones, specifically in the downtown area. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Motion carries. And, um, I'll be heading over to Consolidated Baptist Church for the Smithtown, uh, Street Neighborhood Association, if anybody wants to join me over there. It starts at 7:00 at Consolidate Baptist Church on Russell Cave Road. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Any, um... Council Member McCort. Thank you, Mayor. Just, uh, a couple of things. Uh, one, I wanted to, uh, thank Kentucky American Water. Uh, this past Friday, uh, 30 new employees of their call center, uh, volunteered their time to, uh, put mulch onto the creative playground out at Shillito Park. Uh, basically these, these are 30 jobs that were created. These folks have been in, uh, a training program that for 29 days they were locked in a room with with no windows and, uh, finished their training a day early and wanted to find a way to get out and give back. And, uh, I wanna compliment our parks department and, and Jerry Hancock for, uh, pairing them up with this project in the district at Shillito. And, uh, we wanna welcome those 30, 30 new jobs, and a number of those are folks who are fr- not from Lexington, uh, who have come here for, for this position to give Kentucky American, uh, more of that, uh, hometown touch, uh, from the customer sen- customer service call center. And, uh, so I just wanna say thank you again to those folks. I also just wanna send out congratulations to our fire department. Uh, this past, uh, week, we had the firefighter combat challenge and one of our, our, uh, four-member teams and one of the individuals has, uh, will be moving on to the World Championships in November. Wanna wish them luck. Thank you. Thank you. Does any other, uh, council member wish to make a report? All right, let me tell you where we are and whatever we can put off for a while, we'd be glad to. I have three people who were here to respond to issues that have been raised in the last week. Uh, last Thursday evening, we had a question about a sanitary sewer contract. Brian Markham is here to try to answer any questions about that. That is on the docket for the council meeting next Thursday night. Um, if you have any questions now, you can ask Brian. If you, if you, um, prefer, we could ask Brian to come back next Tuesday and address it then. Um, I'm sorry, Brian, but, um, let's try that. Kevin Wenty, if you could come up for just a moment, quickly. If you could give us a short version of the status of the wayfinding signs, I'd appreciate it. Yes, sir. Um, actually, uh, Brad Johnson here with, uh, Wilbur-Smith. Effectively, as of the start of this fiscal year with the award of the money for, uh, bonding the wayfinding program, we're effectively ready to go. There was... The only holdup was effectively that of what we were gonna use as the brand or logo. And among the decisions of the administration as well as the council, uh, various other civic leaders. Uh... We have a design. Um, I can present that to you. Uh, from my discussions with Brad, we can beginning, or begin the, uh, final construction documents and have those available within weeks, not months. As far as the ab- the, the process beyond that, it would just be moving to fabrication and then to c- active construction. And I think we could do that in relatively short order with the assistance of Wilbur Smith. Um, so effectively, that's where we stand at this point. We're ready to go. What, what- Can you put the logo up on the screen? I can or I can pass it out individually. D- Do you want me to broadcast this on- Before I even look at... Can I... Oh, I'm sorry. I'll leave it up to you. I have them for you individually. Would you prefer- Just pass them around. Okay. Was that a bird? Great. Vice, Vice Mayor Craig? I was just gonna ask before I saw it if Pentagram, who originally initiated, you know, the original design, have they had a chance to take a look at this? That it's consistent. That is effectively the design that I received from Pentagram, yes. They had some other ideas, but that was a- according to state guidelines and cert- certain ideas that we, or regulations that we had to adhere to. That's the design that we had to take and present to the state for their approval. The logo is fine. Okay. Well, what I'm getting- With- In the, in the original Pentagram, uh, way finding study, which they did for David Lord and the- Correct. ... visitors in convention, they had a prototype that they were recommending and- Correct. ... it, you know, the sans-serif or serif face type, lots of issues like that, which a graphics designer- And I'd maybe fault to, to Brad on this, but I think that we could incorporate tho- certain elements of those aspects into our, our final design. That, that was just something that I had immediate to bring down just for a visual- Okay. ... so you could see. Okay. So. It's- Yeah. Thank you. Okay. It- You're welcome. You're welcome. Headed in a great direction. Any questions? So what do we have to do to move forward so we can start getting these out so they'll be ready by the- That's an excellent question. Um, what it will require, the original contract as it was written, a- basically accommodated three stages. We're at this point now to move on to fabrication and construction. We're at that third phase to, I got the, uh, uh, estimate for completion of that third phase from Brad last week. So we're ready. I would have to present that to you, blue sheet that as a budget amendment so that we can move forward with the final construction documents. Um, can- Can, can we ask for him to do that? Do we need a motion or something? I, I was planning on doing that anyway- Thank you. ... and so we could keep moving forward. Thank you. Um- Thank you so much. I'm very excited. This has been in the plans for eight or nine years and, uh, I think it'll be a great addition to our city. Anything further for Kevin? All right, la- uh, Council Member Crosby, you said you had a question for Mr. Marcum. Did you- I do. Thank you. See you didn't wait all this time for nothing. No, it's, it should be a fairly easy question. Uh, regarding the questions about the bid last week, um, the gentleman who came kept making a, a point about, uh, having a office on Manchester Street. And it was my understanding that that location, and it was on a lot of the handouts that he gave us, it was my understanding that that location is a place where they park vehicles when they do, um, contract work for Fayette Urban County Government. Is that the case? Oh, that's the, that's absolutely correct. Uh, it is merely a garage front with very limited signage. Uh, did not see any signage really that related to Leak Eliminators. All of their bids are submitted out of a Frankfurt office and all of their payments are remitted to a Frankfurt office as well. So- I appreciate that information. Thank you so much. All right. Now, Andrew Grunwald, uh, if you could come forward. We asked for an update on the, um, Newtown Pike project, and Andrew is here for that purpose. And if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go make some phone calls and I'll try to come back here in just a few moments. In the interest of time, I won't, I won't take a great deal of time, but, um, I do feel it's important to, um, to explain where we are with utilities on Newtown Pike and especially the aerial utilities. You must first understand a, a couple things about how we spend federal money and how we, we integrate and op, and, uh, and operate with utility companies. Um, to do that, I'm gonna basically go over four pretty straightforward points, then I'm gonna try to address some of the, uh, the points that were made at the last meeting and some of the, uh, the questions that were raised. And then also, um, David, um, Freebird from KU is here to, uh, to basically, uh, redirect if I say anything about utility companies that's not exactly accurate or not true. Um, some of the things I'm gonna talk about are how we establish projects, we estimate the cost, and then how we find the funding. Uh, I'm gonna talk about utility companies and the Public Service Commission. ... um, project utility and what is considered reimbursable and what is not. And then I'm gonna go over, uh, where the Newtown Pike project is with its utility coordination. Um, first of all, of course, everybody knows in order for us to actually actively have a project, we have to have it identified by local and state officials, um, as a legitimate public need. If we don't have that, we cannot ask utility companies to actually, uh, relocate their, their lines. For instance, I can't go out and just tell Kentucky Utilities or Kentucky, uh, American Water to relocate. I actually have to have your all's support. Um, also once it's identified as a public need, we need to identify the funding source. Now, this is very important and dictates how we, we pay for relocations. Um, the, the cost estimates are created, and then we establish a funding source. Now whether that funding source is local, state or federal makes a big difference on how we spend the money and how it comes to us and how we disseminate it to the utilities, as well as with the Transportation Cabinet. Um, once the funding source is identified, of course, we go through the Lexington Metropolitan Planning Organization and we also go through the State General Assembly. Um, once all of that's done, you basically have a project, um, budget, uh, you, uh, you have design, right-of-way, utilities and construction. All four of these are independent sections for a project, um, and the Transportation Cabinet treats them as independent. Uh, for instance, we don't start on right-of-way until design is approved. We don't start on utilities until right-of-way is acquired, and we don't start on construction until utilities are relocated. Um, that will become apparent here in a minute. Um, utility companies and the, uh, Public Service Commission. Uh, utility companies, of course, they operate, uh, utilizing our public right-of-way, whether it be the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government or state-owned right-of-way. Of course, they also operate in private easements, and this is, uh, to provide service to their customers. Um, when they are in conflict, they are obligated if they are located within our right-of-way or the state's right-of-way to relocate their utilities, um, at no charge to us, the government. But if our project is going to impact their facilities, their lines, um, and they are located outside on a preexisting easement or an easement, um, that has to be relocated, um, at that point, we have to reimburse them. Um, sometimes that line is not, you know, so easy to see. For instance, a couple of years ago, I was trying to build a, uh, pedestrian bridge over a waterline, a Kentucky American Water line. Well, they proved that they had a, an easement that dated back into the 19, early 19th century, which predated our ability to determine right-of-way. Um, because of that, we had to reimburse them for everything that, that touched that waterline, their engineering costs, their, their excavation costs for exposure, um, even though it was in our right-of-way. So there, you know, even those rule, general rules of thumb don't always apply. It always comes down to the rule of law. Who was there first? Um, who has an easement? Now with that said, that reimbursement cost, um, again, I go back. If it's local money, that's our money. That's the, the taxpayers of Fayette County, LFUCG. State and federal money all are associated, um, and approved through the Transportation Cabinet. And they can only expend funds to relocate what is existing, um, whether they be aerial, be underground. If it's an eight-inch gas line, that's all they can replace. Um, now the utility companies and their obligations to the Public Service Commission, okay, they must operate within the confines of federal state laws, codes, um, and essentially, if they have, uh, certain codes that state that they must have certain clear, um, vertical clearance or they must have horizontal clearance. For instance, a waterline cannot go right next to a sanitary sewer line. Um, then there are also, uh, uh, state laws that dictate, you know, how far off they must be from, uh, highway fills and things like that. Um, the utility companies, since they are public utilities and they do, um, integrate with or, uh, operate within the Public Service Commission, they must relocate their lines when we request it at the lowest cost possible. Now this is because they pass along that relocation cost if it's in our right-of-way to their ratepayers. So for the utility company to come back and say, "Well, we want to upsize this line," or, "We wanna make a change," for instance, to bury lines- Excuse me. Excuse me, Andrew. Yes, sir. Excuse me. Sorry to interrupt you. Mm-hmm. I know you're on a roll, but we have some time constraints here among some of the council members, and I know Council Member Lawless has a new, uh, neighborhood association that's meeting for the first time tonight at seven o'clock, and she is sending hand signals or signals of some sort that she needs to ask you a question before she takes exit. Yes, ma'am. Is that correct? Is that okay? Yes, ma'am. Uh, thank you. I have just real specific questions. The design that I saw for the Newtown Pike extension had underground... ... uh, utilities. It did not have utility poles, and it had, uh, a bridge design. Now, I understand that that plan has changed, and I don't know who changed it, when it got changed, what, what changed it, and what the cost would be to bury those utilities, especially since they're raising the grade by two feet. Well, the design that you saw was prepared by the transportation engineers. Right. Um, we never put utility lines in any of our, um, uh, renderings or drawings, simply because we don't have the authority to move them, to relocate them. That is given to the utility company itself. Um ... We moved them on South Lime. We moved them on South Limestone, but not with federal money. Okay. Uh, that wasn't my quest- I mean, why did we decide, or who decided that we would not, that we would have above-ground utilities on the gateway of our major gateway to our city that we've been waiting for, for about 35 years? Well, it, it wasn't n- necessarily that, that we decided not to have them. We never could decide to put them underground. We never could justify it. Uh, who's we? Let me make- I'm just confused. ... the heart of the question. There never was any discussion of where the utility lines were going to go, as best I am advised at this point. There were several people that kind of formed the bridge design group, Van Meter Pettit, Clive Pohl, Graham Pohl. I think Tom Blue sat in on that, maybe Bill Owens from Lexington Center. Best understanding I have, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, Andrew, is the issue of the, the utility lines never got addressed as they were discussing how the bridge was going to be situated, what it was gonna look like. And that only recently have the particular locations for the utility poles come up as a matter of discussion with the folks at the state. Is that- That is correct. ... a fair characterization? Yes, sir. So that's where we are. Yeah. All I know is the, the photos and the renderings I saw didn't have giant utility poles in them. Tho- those renderings are down in Davis Bottoms in one instance, and an intersection that has yet to be built. And the bridge? The bridge isn't shown. Okay. Well, I, I mean- And the renderings that Clive Pohl was talking about when he was here the other day, and he circulated those around, they came from a brochure that was prepared three or four years ago. They were conceptual drawings. Uh, and they don't represent the bridge, either of those two. Yep. Okay. At some point, I saw renderings of a bridge, and maybe it was in another city. But , um, my question is, is there anything we can do to bury the utilities? Always. Yes. And- And what will it cost? And- Don't know that yet. Okay. We- And I understand you're working on that? We are trying. No, look, nobody likes aerial utilities. Yeah. And for anybody to come in, as Clive Pohl did last week, and others have in the meantime, and suggest somebody's in favor of aerial utilities is wrong. Oh, I agree. I understand. The cost is the issue. Now, one of the things we put in the Manchester Street or Distillery District TIF was, as, as I recollect, the, um, burying of aerial utilities. Right. That is one means by which it could be paid for if and when that TIF comes into fruition. There, there's no linkage necessarily between doing the road project now and burying the utilities later. Generally speaking, it's less expensive to do it while you're in there. Right. But there's nothing to preclude us from doing it five years from now, five months from now, doing it at the same time if we can get the design work done and cost assessments done. We don't have those yet. We're trying to get them- Okay. ... as best we can. Thank you so much. And I would appreciate, uh, being kept in the loop on that, 'cause I do think it's very important. I know that that's part of why we're doing everything at once on South Lime. And it seems counterproductive not to do it that way, if that's our goal. Well, it would be more expensive. That much is clear. Right. Certainly has been on South Lime. But h- Thank you. ... how much more expensive, we don't know yet. Okay. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Um, now I forgot where I was. I, I'll try not to- ... backtrack. Um, uh, but the major point I was trying to make is the utility companies, uh, have to relocate at the lowest cost. Um, and another very important, um, point that needs to be made is utility companies must maintain service throughout the entire life of our project. For instance, uh, they would have to put up aerial lines anyway, whether we bury them or not. Um, so those lines are gonna be up through the life of the project. Um, the, um, utilities companies do operate in our private... Whoop, I went backwards one. I'm sorry. Um, during the utility phase, usually what we do is we try to handle all these relocations before we start construction. Um, we also have to do reimbursement agreements. There's a lot of legal work that goes into it, uh, for construction as well as design. And the typical utility companies, they always have all of their work completed before we let construction. To let Newtown Pike, we asked the Federal Highway Administration if we could let it with known utility contracts, or conflicts, I'm sorry. That means we knew we were going to have problems with utilities. We couldn't address them beforehand. We were gonna do it at the same time we did construction. The Transportation Cabinet allowed us to do this. Um, the construction contract does include financial incentives for the contractor. Um, quite a few times I've been asked, "Do we have a schedule yet?" Well, no, that contractor has not given a schedule to the Transportation Cabinet of exactly what will be closed down when and why and where. And part of the reason is because he is unsure of exactly when the utility companies will finalize their work. They are working on schedules right now as we speak, and I do have a meeting on Friday to get updated on that. Um, unfortunately, I don't think you can see the map. I do have a handout here that has this map on it, um, that shows all of the aerial utilities as where, as well as the buried utilities. And I can, um, make myself available if anybody has any questions. I have a... I think it's about 80 inches long by 36 inches wide to, um, to sit down with any council member who would like it or anybody from the public and explain what utilities need to be rel- relocated, um, where they're gonna be relocated, if I know. Um, and, um, I guess I can open it up for questions at this point. Any questions for Mr. Greenwald? All right. I- Thank you for the update. I have a question. Okay. Council Member Blues. Andrew, at some point, c-could we, could we see drawings? Could we see visually what the utilities, uh, would look like, e-e- as they're, as they're relocat- located aerially? Um, I could try to work, um, something out. I don't know if you... You all probably couldn't provide that. Could we get on the same draft version, you and I? Uh, I was gonna say, it'd probably be the project team that would have to do that. We, we can come up with a very rough sketch of what that would possibly look like. I, I think it would help to have a visual, so, so that we, we have a, well, a better picture of, of, uh, you know, of what we're working with. Uh, and if that's possible, that, that would be good to have. Um... I, I don't know if I can get that by next, uh, Tuesday, but I will definitely try to get it, um, within two weeks. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Mayor? Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member Feigel. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I certainly understand that the utilities were not planned, uh, in the original design. Um, I think we've all come to realize that. But at this point in time, is it still possible to get under- underground utilities? And if we do move forward in that direction, how much, um, time, extra time, do you think it will take? Uh, how much time will add to the construction project, and will it be completed by the World Games? I know that's a long question, but, um, just comment on the timeline. Thank you. I can give you a, basically a personal comment. Um, without confiding with the Transportation Cabinet, I can't give you a definite answer. Um, the burying of the lines would probably extend the contract past the World Equestrian Games. In other words, there's no way it could be completed. Um, with that said, I have had preliminary conversations with the Transportation Cabinet. They have not approved utility lines being attached to bridges in, uh, in something like 15, 20 years. They have a policy against it. Um, as a matter of fact, Kentucky Utilities only has one line attached to a bridge. Um, the rest of them are spanned aerially. Um, so my guess is it would take a considerable amount of work to get the Transportation Cabinet to even listen to a request, much less approve one. Um, so I think the process would be, uh, very long. Does that kind of answer... I guess the... Yes, ma'am. Anything further? Uh, Council Member Blues. That, um... Gi-Given that fact, um, it would still be possible, presumably, if utilities were buried, to, to go under the bridge, um, underground, under the creek, the works. Um, yes, sir, but most likely, what Kentucky Utilities, as well as Insight, Windstream, and AT&T, would, would elect to do is to find an alternate route that doesn't bury their lines so deep. Um, for instance, at the bridge abutment, you would be burying a KU distribution line, you know, something like 26 feet. ... uh, possibly even deeper by the time they have gone underneath the creek. And so, for instance, they might attempt to acquire an easement off of, um, the Lexington Downtown Corporation, the Rupp Arena, the, the back parking lot, to avoid the fill on the bridge. That's just a possibility. I'm just throwing that out there. I would assume that would be a much better route for them if they ever have to go back and maintain that line. So there's at least the possibility of a, of an alternate route? Yes, sir. There is a possibility. Vice Mayor Craig. Um, I see David, David Frybert here, smiling in the back. Uh, no, no, I'm not gonna... No, I promise, I'm not, not gonna ask you to come up. I just, I think that the, the sense is, and, uh, I appreciate conversations with the mayor about this, and I know that you all are working on it. There's a lot of effort to try to, uh, address this. Um, the, the, I think the, the observation that Council Member Blues made about creating an image of what this is, what it's going to represent could help everyone. And in today, you know, today's technologies for photoshopping, for illustrating these simulations and so forth is pretty advanced, and, um, I suggest that that might be helpful. And, um, and that's it. Thank you. Anything further from Mr. Gronewall? I th- I think, um, that will be all. Thank you for the update. Yes, sir. We have less than a quorum at this stage of the game, but we do, uh, could still take public comment, if anyone wishes to address the council. Seeing that, Mr. Cobb. First, giving honor to the Most High. Thank you, Mayor, once again for allowing me to speak. Uh, in, uh, l- probably in less than a month, there's gonna be a game played at Rupp Arena where some of the most talented brothers from around the country was recruited to come here. I think it says a lot about Kentucky when you see the effort that they go through to put a basketball team on the floor. They don't care really what color you are, as long as you can play. But it's very unfortunate that we live in a state where the color of our skin plays a major role in other areas off the court. So I'm here today to stress the issue of the value and the respect that we gonna need in these last evil days. The utter silence of the Urban League and other Black institutions in the city at the blatant loss of Black business, loss of Black activity, it speaks volumes, their silence, but we can no longer be silenced. We're a different type Negro today. We're not gonna sit idly by and just smile and watch the world goes and use us and manipulate us. We deserve a piece of the pie. I'm not angry at nobody in here. But what I do wanna stress, the greatest thing in the world is to be a Black man, to be able to come through the harassment, the racism, to be able to stand at the greatest seat in America, the White House. We gonna rename it the Black House. We should do that. Not to be arrogant, but to show you how far we've come. I'm saying this in hopes to reach somebody. We can no longer operate on the good old boy network in Kentucky. God is not gonna let us. The immorality, the arrogancy, the pride is a great recipe for the judgment of God. We not exempt. Other cities have been witnesses before us. So if we can evade or avoid that by humbling ourself and respecting the brothers and the sisters in this community that paved the road, that helped y'all get up there. It's absurd and it's, it, it's, it's, it's arrogant not to look whose back you clammed on to get where you are. I'm just praying that I won't be like that, 'cause I know I'm gonna play a major role in transforming this city, this state, and I wanna stay humble. I'm gonna remember all of you that helped me. I remember you, Stennet, to let me shine your shoes. I remember you, Mayor. But I, I'm gonna be a little bit different. I wanna help everybody. I don't want just Black people. I don't want just for my family. I know I got 10 seconds, Mayor. I wanna thank you, and I'm gonna come again next week, and then the following week, until things change. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor has a brief announcement as well. Um, just wanted to let you know about a new program that we're working in conjunction with the Fayette County Public Schools. And then really, it's a partnership between our Department of Environmental Quality and Bluegrass Pride. And you know Bluegrass Pride already does a lot of work for the schools on our behalf through the Waste Busters program. But the new tool that we'll be adding this year, uh, is also in partnership with Lexington Children's Theater. We are, uh, performing an eco-drama in the schools to help third graders learn about the environment and their impacts on the environment. The play is called Heap It On!. The world premiere was at the Waste Busters program a little earlier in the summer. Um, it includes, uh, characters, uh, a talking pile of garbage and Sammy the Cockroach and several things like that. But what it does is it explains to young children that they too have power and they have choices that they can make in their world. And what, the precedent that kind of prompted this idea was some of the work that the police department is doing with anti-bullying. They do so, bullying programs and it lets the kids get involved, and they will be coming, uh, for the program, and they will be bringing their, uh, trash can from their classroom and do a mini dumpster dive after the program, so that they can begin to learn that as they make choices through the day, they impact that. And what we're proposing is this specialized project. We'll be using, uh, Lexington Children's Theater as the sole source provider. We have a contract for this school year. Uh, the management of this program will be through Bluegrass Pride. If a school teacher, a third grade teacher wants to use that, they call Bluegrass Pride, set the program up, and then we put $50,000 aside to sponsor up to 50 performances. So we wanted to let you know about that. And it's a little unusual, but if you have any questions, let me know. Thank you. If there's nothing further, a motion to adjourn would be appropriate. Ajourn. Council Member ... Council Member Stennet- Second the motion. ... has moved to adjourn. Council Member Crosby has seconded the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Ay. Oppose no? Motion carries. Thanks.