Let's go ahead and call the meeting to order if we could. Madam Clerk, will you call the roll? Ms. Lawless? Here. Mr. Martin? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Mr. Stinnett? Here. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Blues. Here. Ms. Crosby. Mr. Ellinger. Here. Ms. Feigel. Ms. Gorton. Here. Mr. Gray. Here. Ms. Henson. Here. Ms. James. Here. And Mr. Lane. Here. Thank you. We have a quorum so we can proceed. Giving our invocation tonight will be Zyana Merkin, who is a member of the SGI USA Buddhist Community and board member of the Interfaith Alliance of the Bluegrass. Ms. Merkin. First, let me express appreciation for your service to our community. In light of this responsibility that you have taken on, I'd like to quote the sage Nichiren who said, So, as you chart the course for this city tonight, let us pray that you remain unbowed by the eight winds. May your decisions arise from wisdom, and may your actions be those of compassion. It is the quality of your resolve to do your best to protect and guide the community and to respect the citizens and each other that will determine the final result. May your best selves shine through. Thank you. We have a couple of presentations to begin the evening tonight. The first is a special one. We have a number of friends here from our sister city in County Kildare, Ireland. And it is my pleasure to invite to the podium Mayor Brandon Will, who is the Mayor of County Kildare, for a few opening remarks. Thank you, Mayor, and good evening, Councillors, ladies and gentlemen. And I'd say it's a great honor to be here this evening to address you, just to say a small few words to you. And just to say to you how delighted the Irish delegation, in conjunction with Sister Cities, how delighted we are to be here this evening. And I would also like to say that we also have our county manager, Michael Malone, and his wife, Anne, here with us this evening as well. I discussed with your Mayor last night a number of issues that were quite similar to ourselves on County Cildare. the challenges for both County Cildare and Nextington in certain issues are very similar in environment, in housing, in water and traffic and I would just like to say that if there's anything that we hope we can learn something from our visit here this week and I believe that we have we did also meet with the tourism people here this morning to try and improve further the good relations between Lexington and Kildare. Now can I just at this stage just thank you again and thank our host families and sister cities for inviting us here. And I'm going to make a small presentation to Mayor Newbury. And it's a book, I'll just explain to you what it is. It's a book on the courthouse of County Kildare. and this is a particular the home of the horse industry in County Kildare and racing has taken place in the Curragh in County Kildare for over 2,000 years so like we have something very great dear to our heart that's very similar to your own as regards horse racing between Kildare and Lexington and again can I say Mayor it's a pleasure to present this little token of our visit here to you this evening and these are also assess table mats as well from the Irish delegation to present Mayor Newbury thank you very much indeed applause applause applause applause applause thank you very much Mayor Will we did have the opportunity over dinner last evening to have a lengthy conversation. As some of you may know, this marks the 25th anniversary of our sister city relationship with County Kildare. It has been a wonderful one with many exchanges back and forth between Kildare and Lexington, and we are very, very grateful to have our friends here. We did come to the conclusion that many of the issues that confront local government in Ireland are almost identical to the issues which confront us. One thing in particular we were discussing last evening was the fact they have a five-year development plan update process, and it apparently becomes contentious from time to time. I know that comes as a shock to those of you who have been involved in the comprehensive plan update process here, but it sounds as though we have much in common. In any event, in recognition of the special occasion, the 25th anniversary of the relationship, I wanted to present the key to our city to Mayor Weld. If you come forward, I will present that. Thank you very, very much. We hope you'll use it to come back off. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you again. And we also have smaller keys to present to all the members of the delegation. I will present one to Mayor Weld as well. To County Manager Michael Malone and his wife Ann. To Sinan Griffin, who is a member of the Kaderi County Council. Sean Cleary, who is chair of the County Kildare Tourism Board. And Brenda Cleary, Sean's wife. to Tom Carberry who is chair of the County Kildare Twinning Committee. Marjorie Moore is also on the Twinning Committee. And Peter O'Merchuk. Peter is also on the Twinning Committee Peter is also on the twinning committee, and we are so pleased to have you here, especially at this time as we had the opportunity to celebrate the arrival of the World Equestrian Games. Thank you for coming at this very special time. Enjoy the rest of your stay. Thank you. And Mayor, one last thing. This is a little memento of your trip here. which I hope you will take back home to remember with good folks in the county field. Thank you very much again. Thank you. The next item on tonight's agenda is an outgrowth of our work session on Tuesday, at which time the council requested that I extend an invitation to State Auditor Crit Llewellyn and her staff to be with us at her earliest convenience. Ms. Llewellyn indicated tonight was preferable. I believe she had travel commitments next week. And so we're grateful for your being here and for your bringing members of your staff. We'll turn the podium over to you. Good evening, and thank you, Mayor and members of the Council, for the invitation for us to come over and discuss the recent audit that was conducted by my office concerning fraud allegations and procurement practices of Lexington-Fayette Urban County government. Joining me tonight is Brian Likens, who is the Director of Special Examinations for the State Auditor's Office. Also, Cindy James. Cindy, raise your hand over there. Cindy is the Assistant State Auditor. She is my deputy in the Auditor's Office. Brian and Cindy each have over 30 years' experience in governmental accounting and auditing and financial management and our career employees with the Auditor's Office. I know that all of you received a copy of our audit, and I know you're familiar with the findings and the recommendations. So what I would suggest is that I make a few brief opening comments about the audit in general, And then we'd like to make just a few comments about some of the questions that the Council has raised recently to see if we can address those questions directly. Then, of course, we'll be glad to open it up to additional questions that might be of interest to you. As you know, we began that audit in early June as a result of requests from both Mayor Newberry and the internal auditor. Our report provides an extensive review of allegations of fraud regarding procurement practices and the process external and internal auditors used in handling those allegations. The report also examines the city's procurement process for insurance services and other services. In examining the fraud allegations, our auditors interviewed the director of risk management, And then we took an additional step to ask that he detail in writing his concerns related to potential fraud to elaborate on and clarify his original allegations that were put forward in fraud allegation questionnaires to the external auditors in 2008 and 2009. Our auditors then investigated in detail each of the original allegations and the 11 observations that were provided in that subsequent document at our request. As you know, when the audit was released, we stated that we found no evidence of fraud. But we do give urban county government recommendations going forward on how to handle fraud allegations and oversee procurement processes so that similar issues in the future can be handled effectively. The audit makes specific recommendations to improve and strengthen the communication of allegations of fraud to the Internal Audit Board, to the City, and to the Urban County Council, to improve and strengthen the process to maintain confidential complaints, to improve and strengthen the oversight, bylaws, and structure of the Internal Audit Board, and the transparency and consistency of procurement policies. We'll be glad to discuss those recommendations in more detail with the full council this evening or at another time or with any of your committees as you work through the next step in the process of reviewing those specific recommendations. The audit recommendations are the most significant outcome of this process, and we encourage the council and the administration to work together toward their implementation. As with any audit, it's often the negative aspects of an audit process that draw attention, but in the end it's the recommendations that really are the meaningful value that is left after the controversy. And we would encourage the energies be put toward those recommendations and their implementation at this point. But since the audit's release, there have been questions raised regarding exactly how the fraud questionnaires that are at the heart of this controversy first came to our office. And I want to address those questions directly, myself as well as Brian, so that we can help clear up any confusion that might exist. In late April, Councilwoman Diane Lawless contacted me personally. She called me and stated that she had a number of concerns and wanted to seek the advice of our office. She stated she did not want her concerns to become political issues, but needed advice on what direction she should take. I arranged a meeting for her with Brian Likens and Cindy James, both of whom are with me here tonight, and they met with her on May 6th. Before I turn it over to Brian to discuss that meeting, I should say that we encourage individuals to come to our office with concerns. And frequently, local government employees and officials from across the state come to our office, bring us information to seek our advice or to provide us with valuable background and information that's necessary for our work. It's a process that is central to our role as watchdogs for the taxpayer. And it's a process that we deal with hundreds of times in any given year. I'll ask Brian to give you a brief summary of the meeting so that he can hopefully address some of the questions that have come up about this. And then we will both be glad to take any questions that you might have. Brian? Thank you. Regarding the meeting that was spoken of just now, in late April, Council Member Lawless contacted the auditor's office, as you've just heard, requesting a meeting to discuss various concerns related to Lexington Fayette urban county government. County Government. She stated she was seeking advice regarding how to address her concerns. On May 6, the Council Member met with me and the Assistant State Auditor. She brought several documents with her and initially made general statements regarding her various concerns. She then gave us a list of items brought to her attention from multiple sources, including anonymous sources. In our May 6 meeting, among the concerns she discussed were risk management, Purchasing policies, insurance procurement, fraud disclosure, and external audit. She was also concerned that the internal audit board was not sufficiently independent to address her issues. In addition to other documents, she provided this office with a complete signed 2008 and 2009 fraud risk assessment questionnaires. She stated that she did not know who provided the questionnaires to her. She stated that she had not discussed or shared the questionnaires with anyone. We copied several documents, including the two questionnaires provided by the Council member, and returned the original documents to her. We suggested other avenues she could follow to address many of her concerns and that we would continue to review the information that we copied. This review was ongoing at the time that we decided to perform the examination. We spoke with Council Member Lawless on August 13th, and she stated that she did not realize that she gave the questionnaires to our office and that she must not have realized what they were or their significance. Open this up to questions at this time. Does any Council Member have questions for Mr. Likens? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Can you help me with the timeline a little bit? What triggered from the point that you had the meeting on May 6th until August 13th, What triggered the need to call, and when were you aware that, what prompted you to call on August the 13th? We wanted to follow up as part of our examination. We had sent each council member, we sent the internal audit board members and others letters stating if they had any information to share that we would welcome discussing with them any information that they had to share. In addition to that, there were certain individuals that we thought may have information because of the relationship that they had with the issues that we were discussing. Council Member Lawless had come to us on May 6th and discussed these issues. We wanted to follow up and make sure there wasn't any other information that we could glean that would be useful. during the examination process. We actually started trying to make that contact prior to August 13th, but due to scheduling conflicts and other issues that were being dealt with at the time, we weren't able to speak actually until that time. You tried to make contact by phone or you were going to have a meeting? By telephone. We tried to schedule a meeting by telephone, and there were various issues that kept us from being able to do that until the August 13th date. And between the meeting and the phone call to Councilmember Lawless, who else was aware, who else did you make aware that she was in possession of the fraud assessment survey? My staff and I knew that. I don't know of any others that we made aware. We knew that information internally. We asked questions to everyone, I believe, that we interviewed, a number of you I see that we did talk to. And I think with every person that we interviewed, we asked the question as to, do you know if of anyone that has the questionnaires, do you yourself have the questionnaires? Have you seen them? So I think that was an issue that we asked everybody that we came in contact with. And what other documents did you copy? There were a number of other documents. I think in total there was 37 pages of documents that we copied. There were ordinances and contracts and other things along those lines, just more general documents, nothing that specifically, nothing along the lines of the questionnaires, but more general documentation that we were providing. Was it all related to the same issue or were they various issues? It was various issues. And I'll point out in my statement I said that these were two of the issues that were raised during our meeting. There were other issues that were raised during the meeting. When she came to speak with us, as I said, there were a list of items. We spoke about this particular item and then moved on to other issues as well. Is there any documentation that she brought with you that you did not copy? There is. And what was that documentation? There were a series of e-mails and potentially some other documents that we did not feel we needed to copy in order for us to make a preliminary assessment as to what role we might play in advising her on how to proceed in having her issues addressed. Was there, did you make a request to not copy or not be given anything that had her name on it? I know that some of the e-mails had e-mail addresses not only from her, but I assume from the individuals that she received copies of the e-mails from. And so I think there was a statement saying that we didn't necessarily need that and also that these were items that had other individuals' identities on them as well as hers. And did you give her any advice from your conversation of what she needed to do next? What was that? We talked about several of these issues we felt like could be addressed either through an internal audit process, an external audit process. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me clarify. Sure. The phone call on August the 13th, did you give her any advice when you called and said whatever you told her about the document, did you give her advice from that point on? Regarding just the questionnaires, because that's what our issue related to. We discussed with her the questionnaires. We revisited the timing in which she received those questionnaires. I don't recall any specific advice unless there's something that you can help me recall that you're aware that I wasn't. All those questionnaires, I think we just went back through. We were aware that she had them on May 6th. So we were wanting to identify and ensure that we knew exactly when she may have come in possession of those documents and wanted to clarify that. So we asked, again, when she had come into possession of the documents just because we wanted to have that clearly stated. And then we reminded her that we were in possession of the documents, that she had provided those documents to us in that original meeting on May 6th. and I'm not certain of any specific recommendation that I made to her regarding those documents. Okay. And I guess that's the only questions I have. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member Wayne. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, the former Council Member asked a few questions I was going to ask, But just as a follow-up, after you had reviewed all the information that Councilmember Wallace had presented to you, was there any actions that you felt that the auditor, the state auditor, should take in that regard? Or you mainly were just giving her advice? Well, as things progressed and issues continued to escalate locally here, we certainly saw that we had a role to play. We were also contacted and requested to be engaged in the audit to initiate an examination. of these issues, we felt that based on the information that we had and the requests that we received, that it was, we certainly had a role to play in addressing these issues, and that resulted in the report that you had. Well, I guess I'd just like to add that, you know, I did read your report, and I'm not an expert on reports, but I read a few of them, but I thought you did a very good job, particularly of the 11 areas where there were alleged fraud misrepresentation that she went into a great deal of detail to verify that none had occurred. And, you know, just for the welfare of the taxpayers and the public, to know the depth that she went to and evaluate that, I thought it was very well done. That's all I've got, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Again, thank you all for coming, and thank you for the in-depth work. This is a wonderful piece that I was sitting on my desk one morning when I walked in. You were aware that Mount Joy had released the fraud questionnaires to us under a confidentiality agreement. Actually, not directly to us, but to our court clerk. And I was wondering just to piece the dates together exactly when, or maybe you don't know, Well, maybe that isn't a piece of knowledge you know, and Susan, maybe it is for you. When did we get those from Mount Joy? I do not want to. I think it was in July, but I don't know the date right off the top of my head. I can easily get the date for you if you'd like for me to. I'm sorry? I can get that date for you real quick if you'd like for me to. I just don't know it off the top of my head. Okay, if you would. Yes, sir. All right, thank you. Thank you. That's all I had. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Likens, thank you and Ms. Llewellyn for coming tonight and for providing us with this report. It clearly sets out some very specific tasks for the Internal Audit Board, for the Administration, for this Council. Clearly we have a lot of work to do to improve our processes and our procedures. I do want to ask one question about your May 6th meeting with Councilmember Lawless. She indicated to us that when she came to you, she did not know what materials she had and had no idea how she came to have them. Was that your impression as well? Can you affirm that that was the case in the course of your May 6th meeting and discussion? She did indicate that she had received many documents anonymously. She didn't know the source of those documents and as to what she was aware of and what she knew or understood or did not understand regarding any particular document. I think she would be the one that would have to address that. Thank you very much. Council Member McCord. Thank you, and thank you all for the work that you've done. It is very helpful for having that outside look at this issue and for the recommendations that are being made so that we don't end up in this situation again. I have a couple of questions when we come back to other questions in this. But for you, Brian, two questions just as a point of clarity. You had mentioned that Council Member Lawless did have a typed agenda when you all met, or a written agenda, I should say. I'm sorry. You didn't mention, but it was E911 one of those agenda items. Do you remember? It was one of the significant items on that. Okay. You just hadn't mentioned. I just want to make sure that was a point of clarity. And then just to clarify for the record, when you all discussed the fraud risk assessment questionnaires, I mean, they were taken out of an envelope. So everyone was looking at them, going through them, reading them together, you all and her. Was that how that worked? The way that we were discussing issues related to risk management, insurance procurement, during that time that we were discussing those particular issues, those two documents were made available to us. There were just the two documents, 2008 and 2009. Assistant State Auditor and I were looking through those. We were scanning the documents, if you will, not electronically but with our eyes. And as she continued to discuss the concerns and issues that she had, I actually stepped out to have someone make copies of those documents, came back in and provided the original document back to Council Member Lawless. We made a statement that we were familiar with these types of documents because they're routinely used in financial audits. So just for the record, it was very clear what you all were talking about and that these were being looked at in that meeting. I can't speak for what someone else may have understood what they were or the contents or how much attention was being paid by others. We understood the context of what the documents were. We're auditors. We deal with those every day. And so when we saw them, we recognized the documents for what they were. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I had some other questions that weren't related to your meeting with Council Member Lawless. Should I just address them to you and then anybody can answer them that wants to? Would it be all right? That's fine. Okay. All right. The first question I had was actually on the first page of the report. that said that the state auditor also spoke with the LFUCG vice mayor regarding the Irving County Council's plan to create a special investigative committee to look at these issues. Do you know what date that you might have spoken with the vice mayor in that regard? I don't recall that date. I would have it in my notes at the office. Okay. Well, that's not that important. Did you speak with him more than once, or that was the only time you really spoke with him about it? I think it was just that once. We were talking about the audit had been launched. We were discussing moving forward. He was in the process of the investigative committee being formed, and the discussion was a very general discussion about the scope of our work versus the scope of that work and how the two processes might be on parallel tracks. Right. Was there any discussion of, you know, not doing one of the investigations since they were basically redundant, or did you all just discuss, go ahead and do both of them? I was wondering how that was approached. At that point, we were moving forward. Right. So the discussion was a more general discussion, as I recall, about process. Okay. And I've got a couple of other questions in here, so let me just flip them. On page 12 of the report, it said, our office received FRAQ questionnaires from multiple sources, including one source who did not request the documents remain confidential. I just was wondering who those sources were and who was the party that did not request confidentiality on the documents? I believe if you'll turn to page 46 and 47 of the report, there is a table that lists, to our knowledge, the distribution of the questionnaires, and how we receive those questionnaires is identified in that table, along with anyone else that we're aware of that may have had access to or had possession of the documents. Would you be able to identify the party that did not request confidentiality? because I didn't notice it on the chart, but I might have missed it somehow. No, I don't think so. Okay. Would you be able to maybe send us a note back on that later? I will look at that, but I'm not certain I'll be able to provide that information. Okay. Okay, on page 17, which was observations and questions regarding the bidding on the insurance. And I think our previous practice was we had a single vendor, and we just took the prices that were quoted based on, I guess they bid them out. And in the current process, we had two vendors. If you had to choose between having two vendors or one vendor, what practice would you think would be best? That's a management decision, I think, that would be relevant for this body to make that determination. Okay. Very diplomatically done. Okay, on page number 20, it was reported in there that there was a subcommittee that was established, I think it was called the Management Audit Subcommittee, and that had to do with information that had been provided by several departments of our government thinking there might be inaccurate information or incorrect information. And one of those was from the risk management department. And it was the decision of the audit subcommittee not to investigate that more fully. This goes back, I'm not sure what date that was, in 2008. Is it on page 20, are you referring to the third paragraph, November 7, 2008? No, sir, I was looking at the very bottom paragraph down there. So we found that the decision not to discuss the factual errors brought forth by the Director of Risk Management further was a decision based on the information provided to the Risk Management Audits and Subcommittee. So I think the point was is that if our subcommittee had initiated an investigation at that point, it might have eliminated some of these problems. Did you draw that kind of conclusion from that? I'm just reading that paragraph so I'm familiar with it. Okay. Yeah, I tried to summarize that maybe too quickly. There was a subcommittee established to review recommendations about restructuring parts of the government. Yes, I think that's an accurate assessment. I beg your pardon? I think that would be an accurate assessment regarding the role of the subcommittee. Okay. All right, well, let's just jump over that one. That's a little bit convoluted anyway. All right. I guess this might be considered a management judgment also, but in the procurement of insurance, and this is on page 32 area, I think the question had to do with the last look practice of buying insurance where the insurance company gets the last chance to provide a lower bid. Do you all think that's a good business practice? Again, I think that that's an issue that would be best determined by management as to whether or not you want to handle business in such a manner. I think I just have maybe one more question here. Okay on page 52 and it says on April 13th the Director of Risk Management contacted Councilmember to report that his position was being eliminated due to retaliation of his submission of the FRA questionnaires. Another Councilmember was also contacted by the Director of Risk Management about his concerns. Do you know who that Councilmember was? I think that would be a better question for the Director of Risk Management since he was involved in both those contexts. Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. That's all I have. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I would also like to echo my compliments to the State Auditor's Office for a very thorough examination, not only of the allegations but also of the processes and the policies within our city to highlight the deficiencies that we have, and we certainly will work very hard to address those deficiencies. I appreciate your review of those. I have two or three questions. One is when you were delivered, when the documents were delivered to you, as an auditor you probably realized immediately that they were confidential documents. Is that correct? Well, we received documents throughout any examination process that some may be confidential documents, Some may not be confidential documents, depending on how they're presented to us. This particular document, as I said, was a complete document for both years. Both documents were signed. And so we recognized it was a document that was being presented to us. Okay, but you didn't think it was out of the ordinary that someone would bring those confidential documents that would have access? We did ask the question how they were obtained, when they were obtained. So we were interested in how the information was gathered. Okay. When you were contacted by the city to request that an audit be performed, did you immediately realize the relevance of those documents that you had received earlier? I believe it became apparent that a great deal of the scope of the examination would deal with issues that were presented in those documents. So it obviously was a significant document to us. But as when you were called to do the audit, did those documents, did you begin to look at those documents in a new way? Or, I mean, did you immediately see the relevance? The documents were relevant, yes, ma'am. So in your conversations with the city as they requested the audit or in your conversations about the subcommittee, did you make the mayor or anyone else in the city aware that you had those documents in your possession? No, ma'am. That was released in the report. To my knowledge, that's the first time that anyone from our office had ever shared that information. And when you interviewed the folks during your audit process, were they aware that you had possession of those documents? No, ma'am. We asked each individual that we interviewed, to my recollection, whether they had the documents and whether they were aware of them or they had possession of them. So we asked questions of others along those lines. As you can see on the chart that I detailed earlier, there were a number of instances where we were able to obtain documents. Well, thank you very much. Those are all the questions that I have. But, again, I would like to compliment you on the thoroughness of your work. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. How are you doing, Brian? It's good to see you again. We've talked several times throughout the process as I was chairing the committee and you were leading this investigation. and I appreciate being able to work with you professionally, and I learned a lot from you in the process. I guess I want to go back to the documents that you received from the council member that was on the committee. You received those on May 6th, I think you said, right? Yes, sir. And it was on June 6th or thereabouts. I think that the report says that that's when you determined that they were the same documents that everybody had been trying to get. Well, we initiated our audit process. I think we determined on June 3rd, I believe it was, that we were going to initiate the audit process. And with the information that had come out during the interim time and how these issues were playing out, we recognized that was going to be a significant document to obtain for the examination process. Can you talk a little bit about what you guys did with those documents when you received them on May 6th and whether you had already started looking at that or digging into those things to see what was there and what those were about to try to help me understand the distance, the time span between the 6th of May and the 3rd of June? Certainly. Keep in mind that we were not requested by the council member to initiate an audit. We were requested to review information, or actually we were requested to offer advice, and in order to do that we made copies of documents in order to determine if there were other avenues or if there was some role that this office should play. So we did review those documents, and we looked at them. We were aware of the contents of the documents, and as things escalated, we moved forward. Let me just add a point to that answer, Brian. Don't go away. We are often given documents from various sources, from folks who bring them to us for questions, advice, concerns. our auditors recognized that this was an internal document that had been produced as part of the external auditor's process. So I think your first blush reaction as an auditor would have been, this has already been looked at by someone. This has been reviewed by an external auditor. And perhaps that first look at it would not have elevated it to a level of serious concern versus something someone might have brought to us, which is a raw document that would point to fraud or to some kind of corruption. We deal with an awful lot of corruption cases in local government, for example, and people bring us things that are blatant financial records that point to fraud, and that is evidence to us that fraud has occurred. This, on the other hand, was seen as part of the audit process for an audit that had already been completed, And I know that you and Cindy, as career auditors, looked at it as something that some audit group has already looked at this once. So I just wanted to put that in perspective. Okay. In terms of our review during that period of time. Sure. That's certainly accurate. And that helps me a lot. Part of what's interesting to me is that our committee didn't meet for the first time until June 8th. And so at that time, you already had the documents from the council member that was on our committee and understood that that's what they were. I understand that you didn't get back with her until the 13th of August to inform her of that. Do you guys have any conversations about what she might do now that she is on the committee and she knows that what she gave you was what the committee had been looking for? That would have just been speculation. That was her decision to make as to how she might handle that issue. But you didn't have a conversation about that? Not to, I mean, I don't recall anything specific where we sat down and discussed that. Okay. Okay. One other question I have, and it goes back to page two. Oh, I had it here. I think it's 55. It has to do with the finding where you talked about the internal auditor responding to the open records request by the commissioner of law and not redacting the name of the person who submitted the FRAC originally. Can you talk a little bit about, it says in here that sort of like the law is still out on whether or not that was the right or wrong response. And first let me ask you, have you seen the opinion from the attorney in our law department that said to the internal auditor that he needed to leave the name in there? I believe I've seen an email to that effect. that there was a request made and through email from the internal auditor and response was no, the name needs to remain unredacted. I think your assessment is accurate. There is one opinion that states that a public employee has a right to request documentation to see what issues have been raised related to them. There is also a competing opinion, if you will, that says if someone has an expectation of privacy, then they have an expectation that their name will not be shared publicly and that it may be able to be redacted. and the point of this particular finding was that there may need to be further review of that to come to a clear understanding of how that type of situation should be handled. Okay. I think that's all I have right now. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you all so much for coming. We appreciate you being here tonight and all the work that you put into this. I know that through our conversations that we had, one of my biggest issues dealt with the legal representation of our division of law, representing the administration and also representing the Office of Internal Audit and the Internal Audit Board and possible conflicts that could arise from that. And I think that you all kind of point that out, that that could be an issue within the audit or within your recommendations and findings. My question is, do you all think in the future that it might be beneficial for the internal audit to have a separate legal counsel so that this type of conflict or appearance of conflict may not arise again? Yeah, I'll go back to the recommendation we made in the report. and I remember the one that you're referring to. Basically, we're saying if there is a, we're recommending that it be considered that if there is a conflict of interest that arises where the Department of Law may be conflicted in the advice that they provide to the Internal Audit Board, that there be a mechanism for some internal, or for an independent council to provide assistance to the Internal Audit Board. So we have made that recommendation regarding those particular types of issues. Whether or not you move forward and permanently have independent counsel to the board would be a decision for you all to make. And I'm not sure if you'll know this. Is that a standard, do you see, or that through research that you have done dealing with similar issues, that they would have separate counsel in situations? I think this rose out of more of a best practice standpoint that if you have a situation where there is an obvious or the appearance of an obvious conflict or the appearance of a conflict, then you would want to ensure the process has independence. And so you would look for that advice from counsel for an independent means. I would imagine conversely from the Department of Law's perspective, they may very well want that as well because they don't want to be embroiled in something that may create a conflict. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. My question is for Ms. Llewellyn. It's just about the whole process of the audit. I'm familiar with a few that have come before us since we've been here on council. And from what I've seen before, there's usually an observation. There's, you know, observations that are made, recommendations that are made, and then a statement from the entity, whoever that is, of a response, kind of a rebut back and forth. Is that appropriate? Is that accurate for the way we've seen it, like with the airport board and some other things that have come before us? Yes. We always provide the agency being audited with an opportunity for an official response, and it is part of the final report. And with that, have other agencies and has anyone in relationship to what we're looking at today, this document, are there ever times when there are requests for changes to be made to the observations or recommendations? To our conclusions? Before it's final. Yes. In fact, it is not considered a final document until we receive that response. We would not make a change unless there was some material misstatement or error or omission. Or sometimes it's pointed out to us that our numbers have missed a piece of data that wasn't provided in a timely manner, and it changed the outcome of the dollar amounts. So if there were some sort of material error or misstatement, we would consider a change from the draft to the final form. Okay. So one thing I'm interested in is about Chapter 3, page 54, is finding one. That refers to senior advisor for management was not required to inform the employee that he was the subject of preliminary investigation for possible fraud allegations. Is that the wording that was in the original draft? I mean, at the very first paragraph, the first few sentences. Well, I have it in bold on the left, and it says finding one. Was that the original language, or were you requested to change that? I believe that's our original language. Okay. That was always the heading for that particular finding. Okay, so the fact, the way that it states not required to inform, was there ever any, and maybe it's in the text here, but was it ever determined that it was inappropriate to inform? Well, I think what we were pointing out in that finding was that there was not a specific legal requirement that that be done. We acknowledge in the finding that that was done, and we talk in the finding that there was some reference. Sure. We talk in the finding that there was some reference made to if there was, there may be a requirement to share that kind of information if it's known about an employee. And we point out that that references ethics complaints, and this was not an ethics complaint. So the heading of that finding really addresses the fact that there just simply was not a requirement that that should be done. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Council Member Myers. page 59, it says that the internal audit board was advised that closed meetings cannot be conducted to discuss confidential issues. One of the things that we discussed in our meeting, not this past Monday, but the Monday before was, and this is one of the things that I kept trying to bring up, was that there was this finding supposes that confidential information would have to be disclosed in that meeting, and that's why the board would need to go into closed session. And one of the things I brought to the board's attention that I tried to bring forward before but the meeting was canceled earlier on in this process, was that the board has never asked the auditor to provide work documents in a meeting. And the board has never asked the auditor to provide the names of the people, person or persons who have submitted information to the auditor that they thought needed to be looked into to breach that confidentiality. nor has the board ever asked the auditor to provide the names of the people, persons or persons that were named in those allegations or whatever that they got, so that the auditor could have brought this to the board and discussed the fact that a fraud assessment questionnaire had been submitted in the normal process of the audit that the external auditor had completed, and that the external auditor had looked at it, didn't find any problems with it, but brought it to his attention. And then the normal process would be that if we wanted, if the board wanted him to look at that, then he would ask the board where it would go on the priority list to be looked at. And so what I said in the meeting was that when that came up, if he had brought this to the board, if members had asked questions and the questions that were asked may have caused him in the process of answering that question, given up some of that confidential information that he can't give up, he could have said, let me answer your question in this way and see if that gets you where you need to be. And if not, then we have to figure out something else because in order to go any further, I may end up having to divulge things that I can't divulge because of my standards and all those things. So would you work with us? Because I know you put this in here as a recommendation. I know your expectation is that we carry through with these recommendations. I don't think this is an issue. I don't think we have to go into closed session or figure out how we can go into closed session because that confidence of information does not have to be brought into the meeting in order for the auditor to bring things to his board. So could you work with us in the process of working through these recommendations so that we're not sort of dinged because we don't meet this exact recommendation, but we still find a way to get the information to the board that you're saying should go to the board? Sure. I think what we're looking for is the spirit of the recommendations to move forward. But I'll hasten to say that I don't think any discussion along these lines should be done without including the internal audit board, the internal auditor, because they're a vital part of they need to develop their policies and their procedures. And so they play a very vital role in how all that will be handled. Right. And that's why I'm saying work with us, meaning internal auditor and the board, of which I'm a part of. Yes, you are. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. Did the Attorney General indicate their willingness to opine that bodies such as the Audit Board could go into closed session for purposes of reviewing findings that might be preliminary, such as an audit questionnaire that might not be specifically related to the discipline of a particular employee, since the Audit Board doesn't discipline employees in the urban county government? Yeah, and I think throughout the comment on that particular area, first we had more than one conversation with the Attorney General's office. And we state in here that this finding was in discussion as we discussed the item with the Attorney General's office and the recommendation is made. They're aware of how this was written and had no issue with it. And so I think that is an interpretation of law that we wanted to ensure that we were on the right track. We had done our own independent research, and that's the conclusion that we had reached as well. So would the auditor's office support or I don't know if it's appropriate that you support, but an effort to add an exception to the open meetings law to allow closed sessions with audit boards so they can freely hear and delve down into this type of information? I think before that path was taken, it would be better to get a very clear understanding of what the existing authority is in that area, because it may very well not be necessary in order to go down that path. But the problem is that AG opinions really don't have very much force of law. I mean, they go to a court and then they get overturned and things. And so obviously if you get in a statute, it would certainly bring a great deal of clarity to it that it might take many years to get through the court system. So I just kind of throw that out there for you. I did want to say that I want to thank you both and the entire team for the thorough review of the audit procurement processes. I thought the airport audit report was a watershed in nonprofit and public boards. I make it available to my nonprofit clients, and working through those recommendations in there is healthy for every board. I can't think of a nonprofit board that doesn't benefit from that. It really is a new day in Kentucky. I'm very pleased that the audit report will raise the standard of audit and procurement here in Fay County, and hopefully this report will also do some good other places as well. We have work to do on our operations and our systems, and we've got in our deficiencies. But I personally want to thank you for raising the bar for us so that we have things to do and we can be a better operation and a better city for it. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I too echo the sentiments of my colleagues. Ms. Lou Allen, thank you for your service. I know your time is coming to an end here shortly, unfortunately, but I don't want to remind you of that tonight. But I truly can say that the work of the auditor's office has truly been raised to a new level, and the professionalism you've shown has been great, as well as the rest of your team and Mr. Likens in handling this issue. A couple of things I want to go back from the beginning. When this first fraud was alleged by this body on council, it was stated during a council meeting that it's unusual for an auditor to audit documents given to them by the body in which they're auditing. But, in fact, that's where you get your data, financial data or information. Is that not correct? And that's what you audit, the actual documentation. For instance, Mount Joy, in order to audit our books, they're given copies of all of our financial records. The documents and records that we audit are owned by our clients or those that we audit. Okay. I think there was some confusion on council as to where documents should come from to be audited. And that's indeed what Mount Joy did at the very beginning. Second item, have you ever been contacted by Mr. Johnston during any of this process prior to being asked to come to do an audit formally? No. Okay. Have you been contacted? Just to make sure I'm perfectly clear, we did talk to him on several occasions once the examination started. After June? After June 3rd. Okay. And did any other councilman contact you prior to June as well? Well, we've spoken of one that came and met with us on May 6th. Right. Other than that, any other council members? I can't think of any, no. Okay. And then during the course of our investigation, I assume you all saw and received a copy of the investigative committee's final report? We did. And do you have any comments on that report? No. It was a report that was issued by the special investigative committee, and I assume that they met their objective. I have no particular. So it didn't have any bearing in your final results or anything like that? Ours was an independent process, and so we would have come to our conclusions independent of any other document that was provided. Good. And I was glad to see at the beginning, Ms. Leon, that you stated that the true meaning of tonight and the true takeaway from the findings is a spirit of trying to make it right, trying to do it better, trying to create the process that everyone can see and follow and adhere to. and the spirit of that is what we really should be here talking about tonight. I know you've left a couple things we probably need to examine on Tuesday, a little more in depth with other folks, but I'm amazed that this is the third auditor that's come before this body to discuss this same issue and the difference in decorum tonight versus the previous two nights. It's a lesson for all of us in how we treat people that come to that microphone because we should have been acting the same way with all three auditors. So I'll leave with that. Thank you. Vice Mayor Greg. Thank you, Mayor. I would second what Council Member Stennett had to say and others. Thank you all so much for being here. My question actually has to do with recommendations or findings, and maybe I've missed it, maybe I've missed any commentary regarding the risk management function of the government and the extent to which, well, let me put this in context. The issues, fraud examination report, fraud assessment report, all of those issues emerged when we were working through the budget. And in the LINCS meeting, which are our meetings for council members to assess and evaluate specific areas of government, in the LINCS meeting, which involved human resources, risk management, I've forgotten what else. In that meeting, we were introduced to a reorganization. And the reorganization was essentially eliminating the risk management department as it exists today in the government, which was recommended about 25 years ago. So according to Patrick Johnston, it was created as a recommendation of a task force or a committee involving private sector companies and others. So as we were going through this, the questions began emerging. So we today have followed the administration's recommendation, in a sense, to change the risk management or to reorganize that. So I'm curious as to whether or not you all have any recommendations associated with that. And there were also questions with respect to whether or not there was retaliation or some form of that that may have driven us to a reorganization. Now, there are lots of opinions about that. We understand and lots of tension associated with that. But for me, the root question still has to do, or one of the recommendations for the government, or one of the questions for the government has to do with the relevance of risk management and how we, as a government, made recommendations or decisions to subordinate that function, which was at one time considered to be very relevant. I agree that that is a question before government, because I think that is a question as far as the reorganization and the placement of that organization, how they function and the relevance of it as a decision to be made by this body, by the administration cooperatively. And so we do not have specific recommendations related to that issue, because that truly, I think, is a management decision as to what is the most efficient and appropriate way in which to operate your government. I guess the reason I'm thinking of that as a question in addition to the other findings is that, Brian, is that if we examined as an outcome or one of the outcomes, several of the outcomes are recommendations related to purchasing, which were revealed through this examination. And so I feel like we still have other questions that were revealed through this that we are not perhaps getting our arms around yet. That may be one of them. Thanks for your thoughts on it. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much for being here, Auditor Llewellyn and your team, and the work that you did. I have a question about your finding number five on page 65 of the report. The finding is that LFUCG has no established method for employees and citizens to anonymously report issues of concern. And in the final paragraph on page 66, you have referred to Louisville Metro government's ethics tip line. Is that a recommendation that you would make? Is that best management practice what Louisville's doing in terms of? What we tried, I think, I believe Louisville went through a pretty extensive process as to how they would establish this. I'm certain that they would share with you how effective that has been or the process they went through to look for other means. We provide this not as a statement that this is what you must do, but it was one approach that was taken, and it was taken relatively recently, and we thought by adding this it would provide some context and also give you an opportunity to gather some insight maybe from Louisville as to how they implemented this and how it has turned out. Are you aware of other cities that do this same process that Louisville does? I'm aware of organizations in general. We had a comment. Bluegrass Airport has been mentioned a couple of times tonight. We had a similar recommendation as to how concerns or complaints could come, be received, and ensure that they were addressed. And they also implemented a tip line, 800 number. But there's a multitude of ways to do this. And I think our goal is to ensure that it happens, that people recognize that it's available, and that it be a cost-effective mechanism for the government to use. And so however that needs to be addressed, I think you could look at what would be an effective method here. Do you see a relationship with the finding number five and finding number six? Finding number six says the Office of Internal Audit did not establish policies or procedures regarding employee complaints or concerns unless provided in the form of a special request. Is there any kind of link? There could be. If you want to incorporate the internal audit board in a process where concerns, after they're received, you want to funnel it to that internal audit board for there to be a mechanism to record those particular items to ensure they're appropriately followed up on. And there could even be a general reporting, not necessarily the details of what the issues were, but that there had been concerns received and that they were either in progress in addressing a certain number of them or that they had been completed. Okay. Thank you very much. Anything further from the council members? I have a few questions that I'd like to ask, and I'll start by trying to clarify some things you said on the front end. Before I do that, though, I want to say to you, as I said to Auditor Llewellyn in our phone conversation yesterday, I very much appreciate the professional way that you have approached this and the quality of the work that you did. So thank you for your efforts. I believe when you made your opening remarks, you indicated that when you met on May 6th with Councilmember Lawless that there was a discussion of risk management, insurance procurement, fraud allegations, and maybe two or three other things, but I didn't catch those. Could you tell me what the other items were? Yes. In our May 6th meeting, I stated, among other concerns that were discussed, was risk management. purchasing policies, insurance, procurement, fraud disclosure, and external audit. I went a little bit fast, so if you need me to go over those again, I'll be glad to. That tells me what I need to know. I think you also said that at that initial meeting there was a list of items that Council Member Lawless brought to you that contained the discussion items for that meeting. It was a list of the various items that we were to discuss that day. Tell me just a little bit more about that. Did that list contain any reference to the fraud risk assessment questionnaires? I think what I've characterized is that already in the list that I provided you was a good representation of the discussion along those lines. And as you went through that list of discussion items, did you specifically sit down at a table and discuss the fraud risk assessment questionnaires with Council Member Lawless? In that discussion, I recounted how that occurred. We were provided the questionnaires. Assistant State Auditor James and I recognized what they were. I made copies of them. There were discussion points that she was making throughout the process. She was continuing to speak as we were looking through the documents, kind of gleaning through the documents. We would ask some follow-up questions based on what was stated. So I think that's a good representation of how that discussion went. I suppose what I'm trying to learn is if this list that you were provided included a discussion of risk management issues, fraud allegations, and insurance procurement, that would seem to be the topics that were addressed in the fraud risk assessment questionnaires. Is that right? Many of those issues were similar issues. Were any of the other documents that were delivered to you that day documents that dealt with those specific issues, or was it just the fraud risk assessment questionnaires? I believe those were the primary documents that we received that dealt with that. Then did you, in the course of your conversation with Council Member Lawless, have any discussion about risk management, fraud allegations, or insurance procurement that came from sources other than the fraud risk assessment questionnaires, to your knowledge? I can just say what I've already stated is that she told us, and I believe she referenced to the council in an earlier work session meeting that she receives documents from a number of sources, and so I'm not really able to know exactly what the sources of information was that she had. I understand that, but were there any other documents among the documents you were provided that day that dealt with these issues? Yeah, there were, as I stated before, there were ordinances, there were procurement policies. There were a number of things along those lines that referenced the process by which things should be done as stated by ordinance or policy. Were there any sources of information about fraud allegations other than the fraud risk assessment questionnaires? I'm not recollecting any. And if Ms. James has any, just so people can know, I think you indicated no. You had no recollections. Is that right, Ms. James? Okay, thank you. I believe you also said that you received the fraud risk assessment questionnaires from some individual who indicated they did not request confidentiality of those documents. Is that correct? We have made that statement. And I think you also said that you weren't willing to divulge the identity of that individual. Is that accurate, or did I misunderstand? No, that's accurate. And I'm just trying to learn from my own understanding why is that information not available. I believe when we get into that specific area, I've tried to provide a good deal of information related to the audit itself. related to issues that have already been discussed either publicly in this forum or in the audit. And when we go beyond that and start delving into very specific issues that people brought to us, I think it would be better just not to share that type of information because it really goes beyond the purpose of the audit and what we've disclosed. One of the issues that has been a concern to me is who had possession of these documents. Is it fair then to conclude that whoever the non-confidential party is is somebody that's identified in the audit report? Well, I'll draw your attention back to page 46 and 47, where we state that in page 53, 46 and 47 is a table of who had the documents, the questionnaires. Last paragraph on page 53 addresses a council member that came to meet with us. I believe that information may have already been shared, not from us, but from the individual as to who that was. Okay. Did the Director of Risk Management identify the council members that he met with in April of 2010 to you? To be honest, I would have to check my notes and look at that. I, it may have, but I would really have to look at my notes on that particular issue. If you could, I would be interested in knowing if that is information you could share with us. All right. Please. Also, on page 46, you indicated that information had been provided to a couple of different attorneys. Can you tell us the names of those attorneys? I think that would be a question better asked of Mr. Johnston. All right. As of May 6, and what I'm driving at here is some anonymous source apparently provided Councilmember Lawless with the fraud risk assessment questionnaires prior to May 6. And right now, based upon the information that's in the chart on pages 46 and 47, it appears as though the only individuals that had the unredacted versions of the fraud risk assessment questionnaires were the director of risk management, the external auditors, the internal audit staff that had only the 2009 questionnaire, and then the two private attorneys. Are you aware of anybody else that might have had access to those documents? If I did, it would be in this chart. And let me reiterate that these are those that we're aware of. I have no way of knowing beyond what I have been able to gather through our interviews and any other means if these documents were shared elsewhere with any other person. But this, to our knowledge, is through heaven. I think you indicated that the Director of Risk Management told you that one of the attorneys, He's apparently the first attorney to whom the documents were given had some sort of conflict. Do you have any information about what the nature of that conflict was? Yeah, again, I think it would be best for him to address that issue. Now on page 58, there is a discussion about the May 25, 2010, Council Committee of the Whole meeting in which I think it's now understood it was Councilmember Crosby who was in receipt of the September 22, 2009 memo announced that issues of fraud had been brought up by the Director of Risk Management. And then the last couple of sentences in that paragraph says, the council member went on to say that the internal auditor knew there was fraud and did not interview the employee or investigate further. And then the next sentence says, the memo clearly states, referring back to the internal audit memo, in conducting our preliminary review there's no credible evidence that a fraudulent act has occurred, is occurring, or will occur. And I think it's probably evident from your findings on the front end, but did you find any evidence to substantiate the statement that there had been fraud, the internal auditor knew a fraud and didn't investigate that? No, sir. When you had conversations with anyone about the work of the special investigative committee, what discussions were had about the work of the committee on the one hand versus the work that you were doing, and how was that delineation of work reached? Primarily our discussions dealt with process and timing, how things would move forward to ensure, from our perspective, that one didn't impede the other. The scope of our work was determined by us. It wasn't a result of the Special Investigative Committee. We determined how to proceed. We followed up as well we thought we could on each of these issues and reported our findings. Is it fair to say then there really wasn't any collaboration as to work other than to trying to make sure you weren't going to impede their work and vice versa? I believe that's a fair statement. On page 20 of the report, there is a reference to a subcommittee that oversaw the management audit work. And aside from what is set forth in the report, did you have any information, access to any information to indicate why the issues that were raised by the Director of Risk Management were not addressed in context of that subcommittee's work? Yes, sir. I believe as we were discussing yesterday, your appearance here, I indicated to Ms. Llewellyn and perhaps to you as well, I'm not sure about that, that I believe we have found some evidence that does indicate some of the procurement regs were approved by the Council in 1983. And I just wanted to make you aware of that so that we could share that with you. I was just informed of that mid-afternoon today that there seemed to be at least in a work session some approval of procedures and that additional information would have to be gathered to see if there were actually formal approval. I will be the first to acknowledge that 25, 30 years ago, the record-keeping processes were not quite in keeping with what they are today, and it's a little more difficult to find some of these issues, but we will continue to work through that. And along those lines, I want to make sure that everyone realizes that I think in the best effort of those that we dealt with in asking our questions related to that issue and gathering the information. And what is reported here was certainly information that we had at that time and that they were aware of at that time. I understand and respect that. Just out of curiosity, how did you acquire the information about what had and had not been approved by the council? What processes did you use? Because if you all have already run one set of traps, there's no point in us going back and forth. We asked the director of purchasing for any knowledge that he had. We asked others that we interviewed that we thought may have some knowledge of that process. We tried to search ourselves to see if there was something that we could identify, and we were not able to do so, and no one else that we talked to was able to do so as well. And did you make any inquiry of the council clerk's office that maintains those records? No, sir, I don't believe so. Okay. Thank you very much for your time, for your work, for your presence here tonight on very short notice. We're grateful for the insights you have provided. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk, I think we're ready for the ordinances entitled to second reading. Ordinance number one, an ordinance changing the zone from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a high-rise apartment R5 zone for 0.120 net, 0.225 gross acre for property located at 165 through 167 Jefferson Street. and from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone for 0.046 net, 0.065 gross acre for property located at 163 Jefferson Street and requesting dimensional variances, Lexington Homeownership Commission, Incorporated, amended. Number two, an ordinance accepting the bid of Scheller's Fitness and Cycling in the amount of $39,030 for fitness facility equipment for the Division of Police and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 44. Number three, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation of $250 from Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC, for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 41. Number four, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to amend the amount of funds budgeted for the various items for the fiber optic cable installation program for FY2008 at no cost to the urban county government and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 42. Number 5, an ordinance submitting certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures and appropriating and reappropriating funds. Schedule No. 43. Number 6. of the minimum license fee to require payment each year by no later than the due date for the filing of net profit returns with licensure valid for the calendar year in which payment of the fee was submitted and to delete the requirements of obtaining a separate license for each location in the posting of said licenses. And number seven, there's supposed to be a public hearing. There's a public hearing to be called for an ordinance. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Chair calls a public hearing. All right. Any public, are there any comments for public hearing? Hearing none. Motion to go ahead, Mayor. Thank you very much. I must confess, I want to get something to drink. Any comments in the public hearing? And we'll adjourn the public hearing. Madam Clerk? Ordinance number seven. An ordinance authorizing the issuance of cultural and recreational revenue refunding bonds, Series 2010A, Centenary United Methodist Church Project, in the authorized principal amount of $2,400,000, the Series 2010A bond and Cultural and Recreational Revenue Refunding Bond, Series 2010B, Centenary United Methodist Church Project, in the authorized principal amount of $1,100,000, the Series 2010B bond of the Lexington-Paterham County Government, the proceeds of which shall be loaned to Centenary United Methodist Church, Incorporated to finance the cost of the following. One, Series 2010B bonds shall be used to refinance outstanding debt, including penalties and or premiums, the proceeds of which were used to construct, install, renovate, and equip certain capital improvements of the facilities of Centenary United Methodist Church, Incorporated, located at 2800 Tate's Creek Road, Lexington, Kentucky, 40502, the main campus, including without limitation the construction of the foundry, which consists of a multipurpose room used for fellowship in various instructional, cultural, and recreational programs and the installation of a new roof on the main campus, excluding, however, the foundry, sanctuary, and chapel. Number two, Series 2010A bond shall be used to refinance outstanding debt, including penalties and or premiums, the proceeds of which were used to acquire approximately 100 acres, located at 4701 Athens Boonesboro Road, Lexington, Kentucky 40509, which is used for athletic and recreational programs, and three, to pay costs and expenses of issuance related to the foregoing, providing for the Pledge of Revenues for the payment of such bonds, authorizing a bond purchase agreement and a loan agreement, appropriating for the protection and disposition of such revenues and to further secure such bonds, recognizing the bonds as qualified tax-exempt obligations under IRC subsections 265B3GIN2II and authorizing other actions in connection with the issuance of such bonds. Thank you. That concludes the reading of the ordinances entitled to a second reading. Is there a motion to approve those ordinances? I have a motion by Council Member Crosby, second by Council Member Myers. Discussion, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Rumpke, I think you can probably answer this best. On number seven, this does not go against our bonding capacity, does it? I think we see a bond council here that could answer that too, but I think it's more of a pass-through, isn't it? Let's get verification on that. That is correct. We are the conduit for this financing. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving those ordinances, please indicate the voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigel? Yes. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes, except on six. No on six. Your vote will be noted in the record. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes. And Mr. Lane? Sorry. Yes. Thank you very much. Those resolutions. Hold on. I'm sorry. I was making a correction, too. I had stated before that I was going to be voting against 6, and… Okay. Thank you. I'll leave that in the record. All are approved unanimously other than item 6, which had two dissenting votes from Vice Mayor Gray and Councilmember Crosby. Madam Clerk, we're now ready for the ordinances entitled to the first reading. Please. Ordinance number 8, an ordinance amending Article 8-20N of the zoning ordinances to reduce the off-street parking requirements for bowling alleys and their accessory snack bar. Number 9, an ordinance amending section, excuse me, amending Article 1610 of the zoning ordinance to allow for parking reductions when park and ride lots are provided. Number 10, an ordinance relating to solid waste collection repealing sections 16-16.4 and 16-16.5 of the Code of Ordinances. Number 11, an ordinance authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, through which grants funds are in the amount of $400,000 federal funds, are for the ITS-CMS Intelligence Transportation System Congestion Management System Traffic Improvements Project, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $100,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to FY 2011, Schedule No. 45, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 12, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Violence Against Women, which grant funds are in the amount of $377,635. $635 federal funds are for a safe havens project, continuation of the Sunflower Kids Visitation Center, expansion of services to undeserved populations, and partial funding of the Director of the Fayette County Violence Prevention Board, acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 46, and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget, and authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with Sunflower Kids Incorporated for operation of the Visitation Center at a cost not to exceed $338,975. Number 13, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $50,000 federal funds are for continuation of the sexual assault nurse examiner program, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $28,150. as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 47 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. No. 14, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs, excuse me, Kentucky Division of Emergency Management, which grant funds are in the amount of $775,969 federal funds, are for acquisition and demolition of seven residential properties on Fort Sumter Drive, Gale Drive, Parkside Drive, Cabot Drive, and Shandon Drive, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $134,501 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 48 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 15, an ordinance authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order No. 1 final to the contract with Morelia Design and Construction for the Lexington Streetscape Phase 1 Improvements Chiefside Market Pavilion Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $20,103.85 from $715,977.02 to $736,080.87, and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 49, No. 16, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Faylor County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures, and appropriating and reappropriating funds Schedule No. 50, No. 17. Mayor, I have a question on No. 17. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Is there anyone here that can answer some questions about number 17, which relates to the two positions of public service worker and waste management being abolished and replaced with a computer analyst supervisor? I'm going to attempt to do this, Commissioner Bush isn't here this evening, and nor is Rama. It's my understanding that these two positions are being abolished so that the new software that is being utilized by our waste management group to track the routes and the various aspects of the waste management day-to-day functions within the trucks, that this individual will be supporting that whole computer system. And I believe, and forgive me, Council Member James, because I'm really just on the outskirts of this, but I believe it's the Accela software that we have just recently purchased and put into play in the waste management area. So they're combining these two positions so that they will have the proper support to continue to use this software and expand it throughout the waste management group. Okay. Can you talk a little bit about why there would have to be, why you would have to abolish two positions in order to create what would be a support? I mean, we all know that waste management has funding enough to take care of itself. I don't understand why they would need to abolish positions to do that. I think Commissioner Bush would have to address that. I apologize. I don't have any more information on it. Thank you. I'm sorry. Well, I will move to table item number 17 until such time that we can have representation here of that division of government to be able to have those questions answered. I have a motion to table item number 17. I think you said until such time as someone's available to provide the information. Is that correct? Yeah, until Commissioner Bush is available. Thank you. That motion would be debatable only in so far as we wish to debate the time at which the motion would be taken from the table. Is there any discussion for that limited purpose? Seeing none, Council Member Feigl. Just in terms of logistics and timing, if this is first reading, do we count this as first reading, or will we have to do the first reading again? It hasn't been read, so it wouldn't be effective. There would not be a first reading until some subsequent time. And since there is a schedule attached, it would not be eligible for a second reading on the same night. So my question would be, is this going to hold up hiring an employee, a specific employee that they're waiting on? Yes. I'm sorry, how do you know that? Well, it will delay the process for filling this, for creating the position. I'm sorry, but if Council Member Feigl can clarify, I thought she was saying, was there someone in line and someone lined up for that? that anything we do that we don't do tonight does delay that. But I took your question as to mean is there somebody lined up for the position or something. But, yeah, this would delay it. We don't have the representation here to answer the question tonight. But there would be another opportunity if we had first reading tonight, wouldn't it? Okay. So would you be comfortable with having that question answered at the second reading? No, I would not. Thank you. What about at the work session? No, it would need to, it's tabled during the council meeting, so it can only be opened up in the same setting per our charter. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor of tabling that motion, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed to tabling the motion, please indicate by voting nay. Motion fails by a vote of 5 to 10. Madam Clerk, if you will give it first reading. Thank you. Thank you. the Division of Police. Number 20, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $240,000 federal funds, are for the Loudoun Avenue Sidewalk Project, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $60,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 53 and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 21, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $240,000 federal funds are for the Southland Drive Pedestrian Improvements Project, the acceptance which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $60,000 as a local match, appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule Number 54 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 22, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irving County Government to accept a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice, which grant funds are in the amount of $143,243 federal funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, R4, reimbursement of costs related to the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irving County Government for the expenditure of funds. appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 55 and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 23, an ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Energy and Environmental Cabinet to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $141,452 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for continuation of the litter control program, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds and appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 56, in authorizing the mayor to transfer unincorporated funds within the grant budget, and number 24, in ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute supplemental agreement number three with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the acceptance of additional federal funds for the Clay's Mill Road Improvements Project in the amount of $4,200,000, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $15,000 as a local match in appropriating funds pursuant to schedule number 57. If there are no motions, we will proceed to resolutions entitled to the second reading. Madam Clerk. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of Bluegrass Fire Equipment, establishing a price contract for a fire hose for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number two, a resolution accepting the bid of Paul Miller Ford Incorporated, establishing a price contract for reflective vehicle decals for the Division of Police. Number three, a resolution accepting the bids of Vulcan Materials Company and Lexington Quarry Company. Establishing price contracts for rock for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of Brock McVeigh Company. Establishing a price contract for central air filters for the Division of Community Corrections. Number five, a resolution accepting the bids of KOA Auto Parts, B.W. Rogers Company, Fluid Power Products Division, Applied Industrial Technologies, Inc., Superior Hose and Fittings, Inc., General Parts, Inc., and Power Train of Kentucky, establishing price contracts for hydraulic hose fittings for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number six, a resolution accepting the bid of S&S Truck Tire Center, establishing a price contract for truck tires retreading for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number seven, a resolution accepting the bids of Polydyne, Incorporated, and Atlanco, establishing price contracts for polymer flocculants for the Division of Water Quality. Number eight, a resolution accepting the bid of Radio Communications System, Incorporated, doing business as RCS Communications, establishing a price contract for communication system and component maintenance for the Division of Police. Number nine, a resolution accepting the bids of Dixon, Electric, Incorporated, Hills Electric, LLC, Davis H. Elliott Construction Company, Inc., and Arrow Electric Company, establishing price contracts for underground electrical service installation for the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number 10, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend the full Urban Services District No. 1 to provide street lighting, street cleaning, and garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for these services in the area included, finding the ability of the Urban County Government to provide these services in this area, which area is defined as certain properties on the following streets, Black Horse Lane, Georgetown Street, Good Pasture Way, Lakewood Drive, McConnell's Trace, New River Place, Orchard Grass Road, Patch and Wilkes Drive, Polkberry Park, Polo Club Boulevard, Polo Club Lane, Rain Garden Way, Real Quiet Lane, Sand Lake Drive, Sewanee Lane, Shaker Run Circle, Sorrel Way, Sunnydale Drive, Sweet Clover Lane, and Tollgate Road. Number 11, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend Partial Urban Services District No. 3 to provide garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for this service in this area included finding the ability of the Urban County Government to provide this service in the area which area is defined as certain properties on the following streets, Bracktown Road, Bradley Lane, Leastown Road, Standish Way, and Winston Avenue. No. 12, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend Partial Urban Services District No. 5 to provide street lighting and garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for these services in the area included, finding the ability of the urban county government to provide these services in this area, which area is defined as certain properties on the following streets, Athenia Drive, Branchwood Place, Hildean Drive, John Alden Lane, Monticello Boulevard, Plymouth Rock Court, Rebecca Drive, and Wallingford Drive. Number 13, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number 3 to the contract with Woodall Construction Company, Incorporated for the South End Park Temporary Housing Development for the Newtown Pike Extension Project, decreasing the contract price by a sum of $50,181.91 from $834,755.83 to $784,573.92. Number 14, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Ervin County Government to execute an agreement with Houstonville LLC for a Halloween event at Jacobson Park, September 23, 2011 through October 31, 2011. Number 15, a resolution authorizing the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry to purchase a Mr. Manhole replacement cutter package and repair parts from Critics, LLC, sole source provider at a cost not to exceed $30,000. Number 16, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Bluegrass Regional Mental Health Mental Retardation Board, Incorporated, doing business as Comprehensive Care Center for Mental Health Services for Inmates at the Detention Center at a cost not to exceed $834,755.68. Number 17, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a professional services agreement with Amy Slayton as a sexual assault nurse examiner to provide on-call forensic examinations under the sexual assault nurse examiner program at a cost not to exceed $40 for each scheduled on-call period, $230 for each completed forensic examination, $50 per case for professional testimony in court, and the reasonable cost of medical liability insurance. Number 18, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with U.S. Geological Survey for the continuing and ongoing maintenance and operation of existing stream flow and precipitation gauges at a cost not to exceed $67,680. Number 19, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for extension of the Healthway Trail Project through June 30, 2011, at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 20, a resolution declaring a surplus and authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of Lexington-Fade, Urban County Government to execute deeds and any other necessary documents for the sale and transfer of property located at 359 East 3rd Street and 950 Whitney Avenue. 21, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a purchase and service agreement with Bluegrass State Games Incorporated for organization and execution of the Bluegrass State Games at a cost not to exceed $52,500. Number 22, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute change order number 2 of the contract with free contracting for the solid waste facility expansion, decreasing the contract price by the sum of $69,051.64 from $1,208,101.20 to $1,146,142.36. Number 23, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a contract for like-kind exchange with big-ass vans incorporated from ISIS vans in exchange for admission and participation fees in the Division of Parks and Recreation. Number 24, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agreement with Kentucky Utilities Company for electric service for the Limestone Streetscape Project at a cost not to exceed $31,920.24. Number 25, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute Amendment Number 12 to the contract with NTRAN, formerly known as American Consulting Engineers PLC, for professional services for the Newtown Pike Extension Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $37,850, $676,501.51 to $6,614,351.51. Number 26, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to transfer property and temporary construction easements to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and to execute certificates of consideration and any other necessary documents for the widening of Leastown Road along with south side of Leastown Road in the vicinity of the Bracktown Road intersection at no cost to the urban county government. And number 27. Excuse me. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Because of the report from the Auditor of Public Accounts this evening, I moved to table resolution 27 until the council meeting on November 11, 2010, so that the council members will have an adequate time to further discuss this resolution before a final vote. Second. So moved. I had a second by Council Member Beard to Council Member Lane's motion. That motion is debatable only as it relates to the November 11th date to table. Is there any discussion on the date to which it would be tabled? Seeing none, we're prepared to vote. Those in favor, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay. Motion to table fails by a vote of 7 to 8. Adam Clerk, if you'd give a second reading. Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to move that number 27 be separated from the rest so we could have a separate vote on it. We can do that. Is there a second to that motion? We have a second to Council Member McCord. Any discussion on the motion to separate? Those in favor of separating item number 27, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, if you'll go ahead and give second reading to item number 27, we'll then come back and vote on them, two separate groups. groups. Resolution number 27. Thank you, Ms. Gordon. A resolution amending the following section of Appendix A, Rules and Procedures of the Lexington-Fayton County Council, amending Section 2.101, relating to terms and appointments of chairs of committees, amending Section 2.102, providing the number of standing committees on which each council member shall serve in renaming and restructuring standing committees, amending Section 2.105, providing that the committee of the whole shall conduct work sessions, amending Section 2.202, providing that standing committees shall have no less than six regularly scheduled meetings per year, amending Section 2.204, removing from mayor's authority to refer any item directly to a committee and providing that the committee of the whole shall not refer items to committee, amending Section 2.205, providing that permanent or standing committees shall report to the committee of the whole, replacing the words work session with committee of the whole work session, amending Section 3.103 to provide that council members may introduce legislation legislation at any meeting of the Urban County Council. Amending Section 4.102 to add committee reports to the order of business. Amending Section 4.104, providing for the order of business at the committee of the whole work session and providing that the restructuring shall be reviewed prior to June 30, 2011, effective January 1, 2011. Motion to approve items 1 through 26 would be in order. I have a motion by Council Member Beard and second by Council Member Crosby to approve items 1 to 26. Any discussion? Seeing none, let's proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving items 1 through 26 on the list of resolutions receiving second reading, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Myers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Feigel. Yes. Ms. Gorton. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Ms. Henson. Yes. Ms. James. Yes. And Mr. Lane. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, those... Coming up next on Channel 3, a look back at Spotlight Lexington. Lexington joins the Secure Communities Initiative. Talk with Lexington's new junior fighter. All this and more on this edition of Lexington Now. Thank you. I'm out. Hello, everybody. I'm David Sullivan. Thanks for joining us. Welcome to Lexington Now. In this half hour, we will check out many of the urban county-related events of the past week. For 17 days, Lexington was in the spotlight, hosting the World Equestrian Games. That, by all indications, was a big success. And that success carried over into downtown. We begin this week by taking a look back at some of the highlights of Spotlight Lexington. The festival brought an unprecedented mix of arts and entertainment to downtown and showed residents and visitors alike what a vibrant downtown can look like. For the next 16 days, we'll have great programming every night. It's all free. There's a wide assortment of different kinds of music and performances that I think will appeal to everybody's taste. I hope they'll check out the schedule and come see us. Oh I'm sorry for myself since your love has gone. It's your home. Hear the western sky of the old prairie. Hear the light of the sky. And I've come down here a lot for concerts and food. It's been a lot of fun. for a lot of different kinds of people downtown. You know, this has been awesome for Lexington, to be honest with you. To be able to have, especially with all the renovations that have happened downtown, to be able to have citizens come downtown, to be able to partake of the food and the events, but also to be able to welcome our international visitors. I mean, that's been the most awesome thing for them to see what goes on in the bluegrass. We have hamburgers, hot dogs, nachos, and a queso dip. I think it's been a great showcase for Lexington. I've never been to Lexington before. We've had wonderful meals and we've met the nicest people ever. And it's also been an international experience because we've met people from all over the world besides all the nice Kentuckians. So it's been fun people-wise. Thank you. Let's go down. Well, we need to find out for sure what's not really liked about the resolution. And I guess one of the ways we'll find that out tonight is by the vote. I mean, there was a vote to table it. That didn't pass. Okay. I mean, I don't know what else to tell you. The two issues that we kept coming back to were the number of people on the committee and the number of committees. Those are the two things that were changed in this iteration that we have here today. So those two things have been changed. So I don't know what else left there is to change. And I think there's also a problem probably with being called the committee of a whole rather than work session. It's actually the committee of a whole work session. And we can – I thought that the law department explained why that was done. We can change the name of it to whatever you want to change it to. That doesn't change the structure or anything. So if that's the issue, then change the name. And we're going to go to two work sessions rather than four, correct? Correct. And the other plan was to have no work sessions. So if the name is what's holding it up, you can change the name. You want to amend it? I don't know. I'll vote for it. I'll support it. But like I said, I'm not completely satisfied with that. Well, remember that we have built in that we would look back at this in six months. So we've got an opportunity to look at it, see how it works. Sure, there's always going to be ways to tweak things and make them better, and we'll be more than happy to continue to do that. So if we can get the same pass, we've got six months to work it out, and we've got a month or so left, I guess a couple months left before it actually takes effect, and then we've got six months in operation, and if there's changes. And I think that's built into it, right? We built that into the resolution. So in six months, if we need to make changes, we'll be more than happy to sit down and make those changes. And I'm pretty sure that everybody, for the most part, will agree to those changes, because it will be obvious that they need to be made. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your support. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Mayor. In an interview with WKU, Councilmember Meyer says that we're not kicking the mayor out of our meetings. He's just not going to be the presiding officer anymore. And this is where I have a problem with this. Our charter says that the mayor is the presiding officer of the council. There's nothing written down that says that in our charter or in state law that says we can get together as 15 council members and call ourselves a committee and thereby relieve the mayor of his responsibilities as our presiding officer. We do that because it's sort of historical. But under the open meetings laws, we are still the council when more than a quorum get together, when a quorum get together of the council. And so I don't have as much a problem with changing the meeting schedules, the number of committees and things like that. But I think we've had enough, you know, dispute and litigation this year than to start kicking the mayor, whoever the mayor is going to be after this election, out of our meetings. I think that's just needlessly provocative, and I don't think it really accomplishes a purpose. And I think that it's blatantly disregarding our charter, which says that the mayor is the presiding officer of the council. So I don't know what we're accomplishing by doing that other than just simply creating controversy. I don't mind changing the makeup of our meetings and when we meet and what our committees are, But I think this is a needlessly provocative move that is going to result in controversy, regardless who our next mayor is. So I just still can't support that for this reason. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, can I respond to that, please? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I guess the first thing I would say is that the one that's being needlessly provocative is the person who just made those statements. And it's interesting to me that you voted for this to go on the docket in the last meeting, And now you're bringing up this issue. This issue has been hashed out by the law department over and over again. The work session is not in our charter, never was in the charter. We've discussed what triggers the executive needing to be the presiding officer on a meeting. The law department is not going to sit here and let us do something that's illegal. So that argument is just a straw man argument. And, again, we're not kicking the mayor out of the meeting. and you did support this to put it on the docket for first reading, so I'm not sure what happened between now and two weeks ago, but I guess that's it. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Mayor. I think at one point in time I served on one of these work groups too, and I'm very much in favor of trying to restructure our committee, our committees so that they are more effective and more efficient. However, the one sticking point for me on this is that I believe that by disallowing the mayor, whoever happens to sit in that chair is contrary to what we need to be doing, and that is to increase communication between the mayor's office and the council. One of the problems that we deal with on a regular basis, that we talk about on a regular basis, is a lack of communication. And I believe this just continues to further erode that communication, and I just have a real fundamental problem with that. And I'm extremely supportive of trying to restructure our committees, but that's the one sticking point for me that makes it impossible for me to support this ordinance or this resolution. I believe that we need to improve our communications with the administration, not continue to erode those. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'm wanting to jump in on the side of Council Member Martin, Council Member Feigl. also, and further state that, you know, we've had and will continue to have for another two weeks or so, a relatively contentious race. And whomever comes out the victor, I just don't see us kicking the mayor out of these meetings. I think the mayor needs to stay in the meetings, and we need to have the contacts and the cooperation. And I don't see what it buys us. If the mayor, whomever he is, is willing to come and take his time to do it, I don't see any reason why we would want to do otherwise. Thanks, Mayor Cray. Thank you, Mayor. even though we are in a vigorous campaign, the mayor and I, that really does celebrate democracy because it elevates ideas and it elevates issues. I am very sympathetic with the role that Mayor Newberry has and respectful and of the challenge of the role. And that's why I would come to the defense of Council Member Martin on his point of view and what Council Member Henson said. The reason for that is I've often voted to put something on the docket and still debated it. I'm for this. I'm continuing to support this. I believe that we must be adaptive and adjust. But at the same time, I do believe that whoever is mayor will deserve an opportunity to really carefully contribute to how it is working and how effective it actually is as we move forward. So thank you, Mayor. Council Member Dwayne. Well, I don't want to be redundant, but, you know, the biggest thought I have is that we need to make the council work as efficiently as possible because every meeting we have, there's a direct cost related to that and the personnel, staffing, records, documentation, et cetera. And so we should have as few meetings as possible, but as many to get the job done well. That should be sort of our mantra. The other thing is that, you know, I feel if we do work sessions that are, quote, committee of the whole work sessions, then, you know, the council cannot vote and take actions in these meetings. They can, you know, maybe agree that we're going to defer it to another meeting. But to me, that's very inefficient. And then thirdly, I feel the mayor should be chairing the work sessions also. So I would ask everybody just to rethink this. The final comment I have, we're not going to put this in until January 1, so we have over two more months before we have to make a final decision. And I think that Council Member Henson's suggestion was let's try to get it all together and everybody have a plan that we can also support. because, you know, with the seven-to-eight vote, that's pretty much a split vote. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. Just a comment about delaying it. I do know that our council administrator, if we do change the way we are meeting, we'll need a significant amount of time to craft our schedule so that we can have it passed and have two readings before we go on break in December. So on that one point, I think it's not a good idea to delay this. If we're actually going to do it, we need to give her time to work on a totally different kind of schedule. So that's my comment. Council Member Crosby. I agree with Council Member Gorton, and I just wanted to clarify. We do have a six-month time period built in where it's a trial, and if for some reason at that time we see something's not working, we can always come back and reevaluate. Is that correct? That is correct. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Just one other point. In our discussions over the last couple of years, the framers, for lack of a better term of this, have always said that we would take a look at it for six months and then adjust from there. I just wanted to get it on the record that that has been promised. I doubt if it is in this resolution, however. It is? Oh, okay. I just wanted to be sure that that has, well, the memories, you know, memories get short. Any further discussion? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple things. I think one reason why it's important to do this now is because one of the things we always discussed was because it's the election and we get it done before the election, we don't know who the players are. And so it keeps the personalities out of it. The second thing I would say is that the mayor and I had kind of a sidebar in this last meeting when the issue of communication between the two branches of government came up. And I commented to him that, to me, communication and working together starts with a relationship. And I have a relationship with this mayor where I can call him up if I have an issue and want to work on that together with him or have something I need done in my district or, you know, whatever the case may be. I can call him on the phone. He answers my phone calls and we work together. He has the same relationship with me. He calls me up on my cell phone. We talk and we work together. So I think all of us can appreciate that the mayor sitting in this meeting doesn't build a relationship and it doesn't create communication. What does that is a relationship, a personal relationship with that person and that person with us. And at least I can speak for myself, and I think the mayor will attest to that. We have that good working relationship. And so I guess that's really all I wanted to say. Thank you. Mayor Martin. Not to beat this to death, but I just think that this needs a change to the charter, and there are processes for changing the charter, and I'm happy to work with folks to go through that if folks want to do that, if that's what the will of counsel is. But I think that would be the mode to take rather than sort of stray too far off the reservation on this. I think we should stick fairly close to our charter. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion? Let's proceed to vote, and let's do so electronically. Those in favor of approving and by voice vote, those in favor of approving resolution number 27, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed, vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? No. Mr. McCord? No. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? No. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Ms. Feigel? No. Ms. Gorton? Aye. Mr. Gray? Yes. Ms. Henson? Yes. Ms. James? Yes, absolutely. And Mr. Lane? No. Resolutions approved by a vote of 9 to 6. Madam Clerk, we give first reading to resolutions entitled to first reading. Excuse me, Mayor. This is just a question for the legal department. I was reviewing the charter, and there was a provision that said that if the council wants to change the date and times of early schedule meetings, it needed a three-fifths vote to pass that. I'm not sure that applies to this vote, but I think we should at least have a legal opinion on it. I guess we would need some guidance from the law department. Can you tell me what section you're referring to? Well, if you all can give me a moment to try to find it in the charter. He was probably here the last time. All right. Well, I just started this. One, two. One, two. Yeah, that's a point that Mr. Eskew made. What was three-fifths vote because it was nine to six? If the three-fifths requirement is the requirement, we've met it. If it's two-thirds, we have it. So is it three-fifths? Okay. Okay. Can you give her the section number? Does it say three-fifths? The section says the Council shall prescribe the time and place of all public meetings provided that the time and place prescribed for regular public meetings shall not be changed except by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the Council. Now, in this section, it's actually talking about your Thursday meeting and not a work session. So the question, I guess, is it the opinion of the Law Department that a two-thirds majority is required or a simple majority? A simple majority. In that case, the motion is approved and the resolution is adopted. Madam Clerk, please give first reading to the resolutions entitled to the first reading. Resolution number 28, a resolution accepting the bids of Lightbulb Depot of America, Brock McFay Company, Graybar Electric and West Light Supply Company, Inc., establishing price contracts for bulbs and ballasts for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management and Community Corrections. Number 29, a resolution accepting the bids of Henry Sheen Matrix Medical, Kentron Healthcare, Inc., Boundtree Medical, LLC, Midwest Medical Supply Company, Establishing Price Contracts for Emergency Medical Supplies for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services. Number 30, a resolution accepting the bid of NTECH Building Services Incorporated. Establishing a Price Contract for Custodial Services, Central Kentucky Job Center for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number 31, a resolution accepting the bids of Language Line Services and Master World Services Incorporated. Establishing Price Contracts for Translation Services for the Division of Emergency Management, 911. Number 32, a resolution accepting the bids of Gauls and Aramark Company, LLC, and GT Distributors, Incorporated for establishing price contracts for police car consoles for the Division of Police. Number 33, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a certificate of consideration and accept a deed conveying Greenway from the owner of record for property located at 3278 Suite Clover Lane, Unit 1C, at no cost to the urban county government. Number 34, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a purchase of service agreement with the Lexington Humane Society for administration of the spay and neuter grant fund and program. Number 35, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a purchase of service agreement and a lease agreement with Lexington Fayette Animal Care and Control LLC for animal control services at a cost not to exceed $1,035,000. Thirty-six, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a LEAP service agreement and New Star Incorporated to provide access to number portability in Administration Center in support of enhanced 911 services for a period of up to three years, subject to exercise of renewal options, sufficient funds being appropriated in future fiscal years at a cost not to exceed $2,000 in FY 2011. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $200,000 federal funds and are for a Brown Field Assessment Project. Number 38, a resolution authorizing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Court of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Andover Forest Drive and Brighton Place Drive. Number 39, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend the full Urban Services District, number 1, to provide street lighting, street cleaning, and garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for these services in the area included, finding the ability of the Urban County Government to provide these services in this area, which area is defined as certain properties on the following street at Wood Drive. Number 40, a resolution specifying the intention of the Urban County Council to expand and extend partial urban services district number five to provide street lighting and garbage and refuse collection, finding a need for these services in the area included, finding the ability of the Irvin County Government to provide these services in this area, which area is defined as certain properties on the following street, Aldershot Drive, Blueberry Road, Delwood Drive, Potomac Drive, Spring Hill Drive, Sweetbriar Circle, and Worchester Road. Number 41. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Lexington, Inc., $500. South Lexington Babe Ruth, Inc., $1,000. Girls on the Run Lexington Corporation, $425. Step-by-Step Incorporated, $375. Downtown Lexington Corporation, $1,200. Brenda D. Cowan Coalition of Kentucky Incorporated, $325. Shriners Neighborhood Association Incorporated, $1,360. Lakeshore Village Homeowners Association Incorporated $1,732. Chenault Road Neighborhood Association Incorporated $350. Fairwood Neighborhood Association Incorporated $500 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Copperfield Neighborhood Association Incorporated $400. Temple of Prayer Church of God in Christ Incorporated $250. Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association Incorporated $1,000 for the Office of the Urban County Council to exceed the sums stated. Number 43. A resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of Shander McCauley Stores Clerk Grade 107 in 14.499, Hourly in the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry, effective October 25, 2010. Charles Burchett, Computer Analyst, Grade 115E, $1,760. Bi-weekly in the Division of Computer Services, effective October 25, 2010. Robert Austin Kenneth Newby, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 17.354. Hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective October 25, 2010. Colleen West, Social Worker, Grade 111E, 1,732. Thank you. 6th hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 4, 2010. Debbie Barnett, Engineering Technician, Senior, Grade 113E, 1,34840, bi-weekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective October 25, 2010. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of William Applegate, Tim Belcher, Patrick Bolzenius, Adam Kramer, Christopher Crowe, Adam Day, Derek Desimone, Brian Doody Joshua Elam Ricky Euler Bradley Farkas Zachary Ferguson Andrew Hatfield Casey Hogue Russell Jones Stephen Kinney Kenny Culpa Joshua Lyle Christopher McFarlane Jeff Miles Kevin Pletsky James Prairie Casey Sparrow James Thompson William Willett Firefighter Grade 311N 17.510 O'Irly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective November 1, 2010. Approving the permanent civil service appointments of Jeffrey Burke, Heavy Equipment Technician, Grade 113N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective October 12, 2010. Candace Warford, Financial Manager, Enterprise Solutions, Grade 119E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective September 15, 2010. Timothy Bailey, Technical Manager, Enterprise Solutions, Grade 120E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, Effective September 15, 2010. Michelle Gunter, HCM, Manager, Enterprise Solutions, Grade 119E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, Effective September 15, 2010. Jeff Giles, Public Service Supervisor, Grade 111N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, Effective September 10, 2010. Paul Smith, Fleet Parts Specialist, Grade 109, N in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective September 15, 2010. Tracy McElroy, Staff Assistant, Grade 107, N in the Division of Waste Management, effective September 22, 2010, in approving the unclassified civil service appointments of George Milligan, Administrative Officer, Grade 118E, 2006-8168, bi-weekly in the Department of General Services, effective November 16, 2009. Carrie Mason Engelman, probation officer, Grade 110, and 13.882 hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective October 25, 2010. Number 44, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government Tax Cue Change, Order No. 1 to the contract with Morelia, design and construction for the Lexington Streetscape Phase 1 Cheapside Site Improvements Project Final, decreasing the contract price by the sum of $45,429 from $1,767,879.10 to $1,722,450.10. Number 15, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irwin County Government to execute an agreement with MASH Services of the Bluegrass Incorporated for operation of the mass drop-in facility at a cost not to exceed $180,000 in grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Number 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an agency participation agreement with the Kentucky Housing Corporation for participation in the Kentucky Homeless Management Information System for the Division of Adult and Tenant Services at a cost not to exceed $1,800 annually. Number 47, a resolution authorizing the Aging Services Administrator and the Department of Social Services to execute exhibition of artwork agreements with artists for display of works of art at the Elected and Senior Center at no cost to the urban county government. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a federal equitable sharing agreement with the Department of Justice and the Department of the Treasury for participation in the federal equitable sharing program. Number 49, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute certificates of consideration and other necessary documents and to accept these freezements needed for access to the Burke Wood Drive detention basin at no cost to the urban county government. Number 50, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements awarding Class A, Neighborhood Incentive Grants for Stormwater Quality Projects to Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association Incorporated $7,408 and Southern Heights Neighborhood Association Incorporated $40,630.40 at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. 51. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements with awarding Class B incentive grants for stormwater quality projects to the Board of Education of Fayette County, Henry Clay High School, $2,500, the Train Company, $4,677.19, Transylvania University, $4,878.75, and the Board of Education of Fayette County, Rosa Parks Elementary School, $6,700, at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 52, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a facility usage agreement with Fayette County Board of Education for ESP and REAL programs. Number 53, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a facility usage agreement with Fayette County Board of Education for use of Jesse Clark Middle School, Jim, at a cost not to exceed $5,670. Number 54, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a subordination agreement with Central Bank and Trust to allow Central Bank to be primary lien holder for the items financed. And number 55, a resolution of the Urban County Council withdrawing the subpoena issued by the Urban County Council Special Investigative Committee to Bruce Sully, Director of the Office of Internal Audit, requesting that the parties to the litigation challenging the authority of the committee to issue subpoenas dismiss the action, and directing that no further Urban County government funds be expended for any legal services provided after October 14, 2010, in conjunction with the litigation except for those associated with dismissal of the action. Thank you. That concludes the reading of the resolutions entitled to first reading. Are there any other resolutions to be added to the docket? All right. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to move to suspend the rules so that we can give a second reading to number 37. The deadline for this application is tomorrow. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second to suspend the rules for purposes of giving second reading to number 37. Second one is by Council Member Gordon. Is there, are there any other additions? Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Item number 42, please. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, just a second reading on number 43. The fire class is in this, and we need to move forward to get them into the system. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Number 55. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. Number 48, please. Thank you, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. The administration has requested that number 37 receive a second read. But, Mayor, I also had just a question about one of the ones that was read, and I was trying to hit my button to speak, but it wouldn't pop up at the right time. I have a question about one of the resolutions, and I don't know if I should do that in the middle of the second read, and it's one that's been requested for second read. I think the best time to do that would be after the motion to suspend the rules as voted upon, and then we'd have a motion to approve those items if the motion carries, and then we can have discussion there. Okay. Thank you. Any others? All right. I have a motion to suspend the rules to give second reading to items number 37, 42, 43, 48, and 45. 55, I'm sorry. 37, 42, 43, 48, and 55. All in favor of suspending the rules to give second reading to those items, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve those items? Move approval. Council Member Gordon has moved the adoption of those resolutions. Council Member Ellinger has seconded. I need to give them a second reading, sir. I'm sorry. You're right. I apologize. You'll give a second reading. Mayor, before she gives a second reading, can I ask my question about that? Okay. Thank you. I wanted to ask, get a little bit more detailed information about George Milligan. I know that Council Member Lawless had asked a couple of questions before, but I just had just a couple more questions about pay. Thank you, Commissioner Webb. I just needed some help in clarifying. I think Council Member Lawless asked this before, but I don't remember what the answer, what the response was or how she asked it. But on this, it's requesting that the effective date of this biweekly pay of $2,681 would go back to November 16th of 2009. From which account has Mr. Milligan been receiving pay since November 16, 2009? His position is funded in general services, not in public works. And I can say that it's most probable that it's just from the general fund. I don't believe it's being funded by any. So it's not under a fund? Since November 16th, he has become a regular non-civil service employee. Okay. So the hiring process for a non-civil service employee, what is that? Is that an appointment? So he went through a hiring process where a job was posted, and he was vetted as a candidate along with everyone else. It's my understanding it's an unclassified non-civil service position, and as part of that it doesn't go through the same hiring process. So he was placed in that position. So it's an appointed position. I don't think appointed is the – I wouldn't use the word appointed. I mean, like a commissioner is appointed by the mayor. So he's a selected? Is that a classification? It would be similar to your council aide is probably a good example where you select your council aide. Do we have other unclassified non-civil service positions that exist like that in our government? We do. I'm sorry I can't give you an example off the top of my head, but I know we have more than just this one. Okay. Okay. So he's going to be funded. The request is that he'll be funded under the Department of General Services for this pay. So this is going back and approving him to be able to have been paid where he's already been paid. That's correct. And the reason for that is because the employee who is responsible for getting these names on the docket accidentally did not get this on the docket. Everything else had been processed accordingly. It just didn't get put on the docket. So what we're trying to do is go back and have this formally approved. Okay. And so where it says the description here, unclassified civil service, are you saying that's the same thing as unclassified non-civil service? I think Mike was using non-civil service. It's unclassified civil service is the appropriate. It's the same thing as what Glenda's saying. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I think Linda found a couple of additional examples that's actually on the docket tonight. Okay, good. Yeah, let me see those. Anytime you see where we're creating a position in Chapter 22 of the Code of Orton, it says, say, for example, if you look on page 4, number 19, where it says we're creating a temporary position of Microsoft Support Specialist, that is a classified unclassified civil service position. Okay, so the commissioner of that area can just choose somebody, whoever they want to get in there. They can just choose that person. You don't have to go through the normal civil service process to fill positions in Section 22. That's correct. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Madam Clerk, I think we're ready to give second reading to those items. Resolution number 37, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Environmental Protection Agency and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $200,000 federal funds and are for a brownfield assessment project. project. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute agreements with Copperfield Neighborhood Association Incorporated $400, Temple of Prayer, Church of God and Christ Incorporated $250, Cardinal Valley Neighborhood Association Incorporated $1,000 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. 43. .354 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective October 25, 2010. Colleen West, Social Worker, Grade 111E, 1,732-64 biweekly in the Division of Adult and Tenant Services, effective October 25, 2010. Joe Anderson, Operations Manager, Grade 116E, $2,200 biweekly in the Division of Waste Management, effective October 25, 2010. James McCarthy, Public Service Supervisor, Grade 111N, 18.839, hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective October 25, 2010. Daryl Hager, Public Service Supervisor, Grade 111N, 15.116, hourly in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective October 4, 2010. Debbie Barnett, Engineering Technician, Senior, Grade 113E, 1,34840, bi-weekly in the Division of Water Quality, effective October 25, 2010. Ratifying the probationary sworn appointments of 311N, 17.510. Hourly in the Division of Fire and Emergency Services, effective November 1, 2010. Approving the permanent civil service appointments of Jeffrey Barker, Heavy Equipment Technician, grade 113N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective October 12, 2010. Candace Warford, Financial Manager, Enterprise Solutions, grade 119E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective September 15, 2010. Timothy Bailey, Technical Manager, Enterprise Solutions, Grade 120E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective September 15, 2010. Michelle Gunter, HCM, Manager Enterprise Solutions, Grade 119E, in the Division of Enterprise Solutions, effective September 15, 2010. Jeff Giles, Public Service Supervisor, Grade 111N, in the Division of Parks and Recreation, effective September 10, 2010. Paul Smith, Fleet Parts Specialist, Grade 109N, in the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management, effective September 15, 2010. and Tracy McElroy, Staff Assistant, Grade 107 N, in the Division of Waste Management, effective September 22, 2010. Approving the unclassified civil service appointments of George Milligan, Administrative Officer, Grade 118 E, in 2006-81-68, bi-weekly in the Department of General Services, effective November 16, 2009, Carrie Mason Engelman, Probation Officer Grade 110E, N13.882, hourly in the Division of Community Corrections, effective October 25, 2010. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a federal equitable sharing agreement with the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury for participation in the federal equitable sharing program. And number 55, a resolution of the Urban County Council withdrawing the subpoena issued by the Urban County Council Special Investigative Committee to Bruce Sully, Director of the Office of Internal Audit, requesting that the parties to the litigation challenging the authority of the committee to issue subpoenas dismiss the action, and directing that no further urban county government funds be expended for any legal services provided after October 14, 2010, in connection with the litigation except for those associated with dismissal of the action. Thank you. Is there a motion to approve those resolutions? I have a motion by Council Member McCord and second by Council Member Hempston to approve the resolutions, just receiving a second reading. I have several people who have indicated a desire to speak, so Council Member. All right. Any discussion on the motion to approve? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I have to recuse on number 55. All right. Anything further? Seeing none. Seeing none. All right. Seeing none, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving those resolutions, please indicate by voting aye electronically. Those opposed vote nay electronically. And Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Ms. Lawless? Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers. I'm going to vote yes and then accuse myself on number 55, please. That will be noted in the record. Mr. Stennett. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Ms. Feigel. Yes. Ms. Gorton. Aye. Mr. Gray. Yes. Ms. Henson. Yes. Ms. James. and Mr. Lane. Yes. Thank you. Those resolutions are approved. That takes us down to item number 8 on the agenda. All of those communications are for information purposes only. Item number 9 is the building inspection report. Are there any announcements under number 10? Council Member Lane. The Special Investigative Committee and its members on numerous occasions have stated that the Urban County Government voted 15 to 0 to approve setting up the Special Investigative Committee. and at our work session last Tuesday, Vice Mayor Gray also commented about the 15-0 mandate to set up the committee by the council. And I voted to set up the committee, too, because of the allegations that were made by Council Member Crosby. She specifically said on May 25th that fraud had been committed, that our internal auditors knew and didn't see any issues of fraud and that they didn't investigate the fraud issue. Based on this factually inaccurate statement by Council Member Crosby, I and I suppose 13 other Council Members voted to set up the Special Investigator Committee. I don't know of any Council Member who would not want to investigate fraud in our government. But the facts are the Internal Audit Board did not know of any fraud. The Internal Auditor, Bruce Shelley, didn't know of any fraud. The Internal Auditor did discuss the matter with the risk management director. The Internal Auditor, a certified staff auditor in the Internal Audit Department, and the Internal Audit Board chair did investigate possible fraud and found no indications of fraud. And the external auditors, Monjoy and Chilton, did two audits made in 2008 and 2009, and they did not find any fraud. And then, of course, the special investigative committee that was set up by the vice mayor, they signed off that there was no fraud, and Ms. Crosby signed off on that document. And then most recently, the state auditor who was here this evening found there was no fraud, misrepresentation, or deception in the operations of the government. So it appears that each and every allegation made by Council Member Crosby on May 25th was totally inaccurate and not substantiated by the facts. As a matter of fact, this is even more confusing. On August 9th, Patrick Johnson at the special investigative meeting answered a question from Councilmember McCord. The question was, Mr. Johnson, who at the LFUCG has committed fraud? And Mr. Johnson's answer was, the report that I filled out specifically asked, are you aware of any fraud? I made observations of what I thought might be fraud, but I never directly accused anybody of fraud in these reports. They were given to Monjoy Chilton to investigate to make that determination. So, you know, based on Patrick Johnson's answer and the other statements on the record, I believe Council Member Crosby should immediately withdraw all of her allegations and charges of May 25, 2010, and issue a written apology to the internal auditor Bruce Shelley, the internal auditor board, the commission of law, and the general public. And further, I'd like to say in the future, I don't think it would be good policy for our council to rely on the credibility of the personal statements or representations of a council person to set up a special investigative committee unless we have some documentation presented to the council to substantiate those allegations. Because if we had done that, we would have probably not have voted in the affirmative because that information was not readily available. And I believe that these unsubstantiated allegations have damaged the credibility of the Urban County Council. It's wasted taxpayers' money. It's been demoralizing to many of our city employees, and it's really diverted the focus of the Urban County Council from more important issues. And my comments are not personal in nature and are not intended to. They're intended only to correct the record and to help restore the reputations of the city's employees that were damaged by these inaccurate statements. That's my comment. Thank you. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to make one simple response to Mr. Lane. I certainly respect your right to your opinions. I'm disappointed that you have made these about Council Member Crosby after she left the room. Well, I gave some consideration to that, but this was the evening that I planned to give it out to the internal auditor. and, you know, all the other council members are here, and she could have stayed, I think. Thank you. Any further announcements? Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question. I saw, I guess, on TV the night before last that the co-pilot 5191 had settled his suit against, and that's what I don't know. We were a defendant at one point. LFECG was a defendant at one point. The Bluegrass Field was a defendant. The airport board was a defendant. the FAA was a defendant the CIA was a defendant Scout Troop 141 was a defendant I mean it was just a long list of people My recollection is there was a motion to dismiss us early on in that litigation on the basis of sovereign immunity and we have been out of that litigation for years I thought that might have been the case we'd heard something, I just wondered Thank you. Is that consistent with your recollection, Ms. George? Councilmember James. Thank you, Mayor. I feel the need to respond to Councilmember Lane's whatever it was. Also, it's, you know, he claimed to not personally attack, but he named someone by name. contrary to what was stated, I believe that the report actually demonstrates, it may not demonstrate what is the definition of fraud, but it did highlight a lot of things about our government processes that need to be evaluated. And if it weren't for this report, some people need things written in black and white in order to know that they need to do something, and from a well-respected, in their eyes, person to give that, in all of our eyes, really, to give that. And so I hope that in no way will anyone on this council diminish the words that are included in this, the process by which it was handled. We did everything per the book as far as our body and as our council, and I think that's a powerful statement of our legislative abilities. And each person across this horseshoe, their actions could be questioned at some point or another. Council Member Lane, there's plenty of things that I could list to you that you should apologize for in writing. But I would let you know that to your face and directly to you, not necessarily on the television after you had left the meeting. I mean, I believe it's inappropriate. I concur with Council Member Gordon, and I hope this is not a reflection of your future leadership on this council. Thank you, Mayor. Any further announcements? Any public comment? Mr. McCarthy. Your Honor and members of the council, First off, I want to say that I've noticed quite a few sections of various streets around town show what would be best described as alligator cracking of the pavement. I really wish you guys would have the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry chip seal these spots before it gets too cold to do so. I know that takes money, and I know that it's messy, but it would greatly reduce the number of potholes that will have to be filled with cold mix in January and February, and also save a lot of citizens from blown tires and broken shock absorbers as well. And second, I am curious as to what the seven houses are being acquired and demolished for under Ordinance 14. And finally, your restructuring, I think you may have handcuffed yourselves or tied yourselves in the knot if you're not allowing yourselves to refer things to committee from work sessions anymore. Thank you, Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Dalton. Thank you, Mayor. Council Members, Robert Dalton, 520 Douglas Avenue. I do apologize because what I want to talk about tonight is not right up to date. It has been just a couple of months ago, but because of council schedules and my own health issues, it's kind of pushed it back a little bit. Excuse me. What I want to talk about, though, was the shooting of a pet in its yard by a police officer a couple of months ago. Now, my wife and I, we have four dogs. We have a six-foot fence, keep them safe and protected, and that's their area. And I know if I had a police officer chasing after a teen who's just trying to give them a summons to court, and that police officer comes through my yard and shoots my dogs and kills them, I would be quite upset. I'm hoping, though, that the city will just look at the procedures that are followed through in a situation like this. Because in my case, as I said, our dogs are our children, and we love them and care for them very much, and it would be heartbreaking for us to lose a dog. My wife lost one of the dogs last year from health reasons, and it tore her up. And these are our children. They may just be a dog to a lot of other people. But there's a lot of us out here, though, who really care about our pets and love them very much, just as much as our children. And in such a small thing with a police officer, I understand they're out here trying to protect the public. But in a case like this where they're trespassing into a private yard and then shooting a dog, which is doing what it's supposed to be doing, it's protecting its yard, something needs to be looked at. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Dalton. Does any other member of the public wish to address the council? All right. Chief Hendricks, if you will step forward, and Commander Armstrong, if you will come along. Chief, I think you have a disciplinary matter. Yes, Mayor and Council, I bring to you Fire Lieutenant Darren Day, employee number 37246. He's charged with having made verbal threats or harassing statements. and conduct unbecoming an officer. The fire administration, together with the commissioner of public safety, recommends 72 hours of suspension without pay for scheduled work hours. Lieutenant Day has indicated his conformity with that, and the form bears his signature as well as mine, and the Public Safety Commission. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Ellinger and a second by Council Member Gorton to approve the recommended discipline. Any discussion? Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Chief, to whom were the statements made? Was it another employee or citizen? Another employee of the government. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the recommended discipline, Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Commander Armstrong. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, I'm also here in regards to agreement of conformity, in regards to a disciplinary matter, I'll summarize it at this time. An allegation was made that Detective Joshua Masterson, employee number 42216, committed the offense of inappropriate action in violation of General Order 73-2-8, Operational Rules, Section 1.48. On the dates of April the 8th and 9th of 2010, he allegedly used inappropriate decision-making process by not following proper procedure when handling an on-duty situation. The employee named Lamed is aware of the provisions and rights afforded to him under KRS and governmental policy. And in consideration of the recommendation of the Chief of Police of Lexington County Government, Division of Police, and the Commissioner of Public Safety feels that the appropriate punishment for the contact is written reprimand. Employee Masterson has voluntarily accepted the indicated disciplinary action, provided that the punishment awarded by the urban county government does not exceed the above recommendation of the chief of police and the commissioner of public safety. And that's the conclusion of the summary. Second. I have a motion with Council Member Myers and a second with Council Member Martin to approve the recommended discipline. Any discussion? Council Member Ellinger. What was the punishment? Written reprimand, sir. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Commander, you said this offense happened in April? Yes, ma'am. So I was just curious why it takes so long. Well, it was a lengthy investigation. We had to review some past policies that were actually taken in consideration during the incident to ensure that the officer had been trained on it in the past and was presented to it, and we wanted to make sure that we took the time to review it. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the recommended discipline, Please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you, sir. Thank you. There's no further business. A motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon and a second by Council Member Ellinger to adjourn. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. No, honey. Thank you.