# Council Work Session - November 23, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · November 23, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1763 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1763?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-11-23 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 10,277 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council convened under the presiding authority of the Mayor for a session covering four agenda items. The meeting included informational reports and updates across multiple topic areas, with no formal public comments recorded during the public comment period on agenda items. Over the course of the meeting, the Council conducted 5 votes and received several informational presentations. The agenda featured reports from the Water Resources Oversight Committee and the Planning Committee, as well as an annual update from the Courthouse Area Design Review Board. All four agenda items were informational in nature, reflecting a session focused on receiving updates and committee reports rather than taking major legislative action. ## Attendance All eleven Council Members were present at the November 23, 2010 Council meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late. **Members Present:** - Council Member Beard - Council Member Ellinger - Council Member Gorton - Council Member Myers - Council Member Martin - Council Member Stennett - Council Member Henson - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Lane - Council Member Blues - Council Member Gordon ## Votes and Decisions All votes at the November 23, 2010 Council meeting were conducted by voice vote. Five motions were considered, all of which passed. - **Approval of the November 16th Summary** [timestamp: 0:04:35]: Moved by Council Member Beard and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. - **Approval of New Business Items** [timestamp: 0:05:07]: Moved by Council Member Gorton and seconded by Council Member Myers. The motion passed by voice vote. - **NDEF List Approval** [timestamp: 0:22:36]: Moved by Council Member Beard and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. - **Docket Item for December 2nd Meeting — State Department of Transportation Contract Resolution** [timestamp: 0:20:51]: Moved by Council Member Blues and seconded by Council Member Beard. The Council voted to place on the December 2nd meeting docket a resolution approving a contract with the State Department of Transportation. The motion passed by voice vote. - **Docket Item — Ordinance Extending Term of Two Positions in Parks and Recreation and Human Resources** [timestamp: 0:23:55]: Moved by Council Member Henson and seconded by Council Member Lawless. The Council voted to place on the docket an ordinance extending the term of two positions in the Parks and Recreation and Human Resources departments. The motion passed by voice vote. No roll call votes were taken at this meeting; as a result, individual member votes for or against any motion are not recorded. ## Contested Items - **Extension of Employment for Certain Positions** [timestamp: N/A] The Council engaged in heated discussion regarding a proposal to extend the employment of certain positions within the Parks and Recreation and Human Resources departments. The debate centered on two primary concerns: budget constraints and fairness in how the extensions were being applied. Council members raised questions about whether extending these positions was fiscally responsible given the existing budgetary pressures facing the municipality. There were also concerns about the equitable treatment of employees, with discussion touching on whether the decision to extend some positions while potentially leaving others unaddressed was being handled consistently and fairly. The structured data available does not identify the specific individuals involved in the debate beyond the Council as a body, nor does it record a definitive outcome of the discussion. Readers seeking the full details of the arguments made and any vote or resolution that followed are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or video directly. ## Public comment on issues on today's agenda [timestamp: 04:02] The Council opened the floor for public comment on issues appearing on the day's agenda. No members of the public wished to address the Council, and no comments were received. ## Water Resources Oversight Committee Report [timestamp: 07:09] Council Member Blues presented the minutes and highlights from the November 16 meeting of the Water Resources Oversight Committee. The presentation covered several topics discussed at the committee's most recent meeting, including: - Various water quality projects under the committee's purview - Financial reports related to water resources The report was informational in nature, with no action required from the full Council. No additional speakers or debate on the item were recorded. ## Planning Committee Report [timestamp: 12:38] Council Member Gorton presented a report on the Planning Committee's final meeting of 2010. The report was informational in nature, providing the full Council with an update on the matters discussed at the committee level. Among the topics addressed were: - **Definition of "circus" in the zoning ordinance** — The committee examined how the term "circus" is defined within the existing zoning framework, suggesting that clarifying or updating this definition was a matter under consideration. - **Encroachment issues** — The committee also discussed encroachment-related concerns, though specific details regarding the nature or location of the encroachments were not elaborated upon in the report. No votes or formal actions were taken by the full Council on this item, as the report was presented for informational purposes only. ## Courthouse Area Design Review Board Annual Update [timestamp: 17:37] Mr. Van Pelt delivered the annual update to the Council on the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone. His presentation covered the board's recent activity, including project approvals and financial records associated with the overlay zone. The update was informational in nature, and no vote or formal action was taken by the Council as a result of the presentation. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the November 16th summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket for December 2nd meeting a resolution approving a contract with the State Department of Transportation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket an ordinance extending the term of two positions in Parks and Recreation and Human Resources - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the NDEF list --- ## Full transcript Or how far apart in time we are As long as I live here And she still stands there Our fortunes will be the same She can still be a lyric And I can still be her song Dig in Let the brick move the door Raise the knees Seal the roof Open her doors Fill the room with light Dig in Let the brick put the doors Raise the knees Seal the roof Open her doors Fill the room with light Dig in Let the brick open her doors Fill the room with light Dig in Open her doors Fill the room with light Fill the room with light Fill the room with light Fill the world with light Thank you. Bianca Sprague, everyone. Thank you. Welcome to GTV3 and today's Urban County Council Work Session. Here's a look at what's on today's agenda. New business items before the council this week include... Continuing business before the council includes... If you're not able to watch this council work session live on GTV3, you can watch a real-time web stream on your computer at lexingtonky.gov or replay it at these times on GTV3. Thank you for watching GTV3 for coverage of today's council work session. If you have any questions about your urban county government, call Lexcall at 311 or 425-2255. Thank you. Thank you. We're underway if we could, please. The first thing on this afternoon's agenda is public comment on issues that are on today's agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? All right, we do not have a docket to approve. We do have a summary to approve. Is there a motion? Second. We have a motion by Council Member Beard and a second by Council Member Ellinger to approve the November 16th summary. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We have no budget amendments, but we do have a fair number of new business items today. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Gorton and a second by Council Member Myers. Thank you. I knew there was a voice down there. To approve the budget, the new business items. Any discussion? Council Member Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. This is not a question, but I just wanted to point out particularly to the public that on our new business today, we have items I through Q, which are all the Class A neighborhood and Class B business water quality incentive grants. And this is part of the water quality plan that we have put into place that's been unfolding over the past many months, and these are the first grants that we're awarding. And I think it's a really wonderful thing. They are all meant to impact stormwater quality, and it's a wide variety of grants, and I really appreciate the work that our water quality and environmental quality folks have done on these grants. This is a first step to making a big difference in our water quality. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to recuse from item Q. My wife is the immediate past president of the Ronald McDonald Charities, the Bluegrass, and therefore I'm going to recuse from voting on this item. All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of approving the new business items, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That takes us down to the presentations, first being from the Water Resources Oversight Committee. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. The minutes of the November 16 meeting of the Water Resources Oversight Committee have been provided to all council members and put in your mailboxes. And let me go through some of the highlights of that meeting. Regarding demolished properties maintenance, Director of Water Quality Martin provided the committee with a final version of the typical home demolition schedule, which shows a 36-week process from appraisal to demolition, grading, and cleanup. This timeline includes district council member notifications at an early stage of the process. And that model schedule is in the packet. Council Member Stinnett, who is chairing the Stormwater Priority Project List Workgroup, reported that meetings have been productive, have provided the Division of Water Quality with sufficient information needed to prepare a draft of an RFP, the final version of which will be presented to the workgroup at next month's final meeting. Budget and financials, Finance Commissioner Linda Rumke presented the financial report, in the course of which several council members had questions regarding receivables, water quality fees, sanitary sewer fee revenue, landfill costs. Answers to all of these questions were contained in an 1117 e-mail to the committee members, and these are also included in the meeting packet report. There were a number of items that Director Martin reported on, and which appear in today's work session packet. And let me briefly renew them. The first one has to do with LFUCG's MS4 discharge permit, which requires continued operation and maintenance of existing stream flow and rain gauges. Water Quality proposes to carry out this requirement by amending our contract with the United States Geological Survey, and that proposed amendment is item F of today's new business items. Secondly, there are two change orders requested in new business items E and G. These are related to EPA-required sanitary sewer assessments. Item G authorizes termination of one contract, and item E is a change order to cover increased consultant services with another contractor. Third, item H authorizes a lease agreement with Windmar Corporation that will enable the Division of Water Quality to house administrative and technical staff in one building. Item R authorizes an engineering services contract to conduct design, bidding, construction services necessary for the relocation of the existing sanitary sewer, which is located under the existing Lexington Mall structure. And item T authorizes the creation of a Deputy Director of Administration Services for Division of Water Quality. As Councilmember Gorton just reported, we do have a number of items related to the Stormwater Quality Project Incentive Grant Awards, which Water Quality Engineer Susan Kluger announced and described. As she said, those grant awards are detailed in items I through Q in today's packet. So Water Quality takes up a lot of today's new business items. Just as a final note, the November 16 meeting was the last one of the Water Quality Oversight Committee, which will be incorporated into the new Environmental Quality Standing Committee. And I want to thank committee members Beard, Henson, Gray, Gorton, Feigl, and Stennett for their service to the committee over the last many months. Also the Second District Legislative Aide Georgetta Gill, who staffed our committee, and to Acting Commissioner Bush, to Director Martin, to Commissioner Rumpke, and members of the Division of Water Quality staff who kept our committee members informed and up to date. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you. Any questions for Councilmember Bluth? All right, Councilmember Gorton, if you'd bring the Planning Committee report. Thank you, Mayor. The Planning Committee held its final meeting of 2010 on November 16th. And the first item on our agenda was Definition of Circus in the Zoning Ordinance. And this item was brought to the Planning Committee because of circus that was located at the entrance of a neighborhood, and safety concerns and parking concerns and tents and trucks and other items became a great concern in the neighborhood. So our Director of Planning, Chris King, and our Director of Building Inspection, Dewey Crow, were on hand to give a review of the current ordinance and pointed out some very specific language about circuses and carnivals on a temporary basis and about issuance of permits. And so in the course of the discussion, Mr. King pointed out that there is no differentiation between circus or carnival, and there also was no definition of temporary. And so in response to questions, we learned that in Fayette County, there are less than 10, quote, circuses per year, and there are many more than that carnival permits issued, churches, schools, charity events, et cetera. And so the results of our discussion were that the committee has asked for planning and building inspection to look at definitions of circus and definitions of carnival separately, and to look at eliminating circuses from specific B zones and also to define the word temporary, and then those things will be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Committee. And then the second item on our agenda was revolving around the encroachment issue, which has to do with encroachment in LFUCG easements, as well as the permitting of projects that may be encroaching, such as signage, pools in easements, and other such things. And so Councilmember Stennett had brought this to the Planning Committee, and part of the dilemma is that many citizens don't know to get permission to build something, and it ends up in the easement, and then it creates difficulty for LFUCG when we want to work in the easement. So after much discussion about this, we did learn from Charlie Martin, Director of the Division of Water Quality, that they have taken a good hard look at this and are tightening up the processes and permitting, et cetera, and feel that they're on a good track to help with this situation so that we do not have this problem in the future. And so this issue is actually being removed from the Planning Committee. The other two items in our committee were simply written reports. One was the Newtown Pike update, and one was the Liberty Road update. And the couple other things that were pointed out, which I think Councilmembers need to know, is there is a Parks Master Plan funding small work group in place, and two Councilmembers who serve on that will not be on the Council next year, and so those folks will need to be replaced more than likely if the committee continues its work. And then the only other thing is I wanted to publicly thank the Planning Committee members. As most of you know, our Planning Committee has had many special meetings in the last two years to work through two full pages of issues which were in the Planning Committee. So I want to thank all of the Councilmembers who served on our Planning Committee, and particularly thank you for being willing to step up and have several extra meetings. And I really appreciate Paul Schonegger and the core staffing of the committee. So thank you, Mayor. That concludes my report. Any questions for Councilmember Gordon? Okay. Mr. Van Pelt, if you will come forward and give us the annual update on the Courthouse Area Design Review Board, please. Thank you, Mayor. As you know, we're required to give you an annual update on the Courthouse Area Design Overlay Zone by ordinance. This is the 2010 update. Some of this information will look familiar. The Courthouse Design Overlay Zone is roughly 24 acres in the middle of downtown. There are 90 parcels within the overlay zone. The Board meets on a quarterly or as-needed schedule here in the Council Chamber, and we have adopted this meeting schedule, but we also meet on an as-needed basis. This is the makeup of the Board that works and reviews the projects, and each slot is representative of what's called out in the ordinance with regard to preservation, design, and property owner, business owner, banking representative, and the LFUCG. Approval so far in 2010, 7 by the Board, 5 by myself, and approvals to date, 41 by the Board, 26 by the staff. And I'll go through these briefly. These are some of the projects that have been approved by the Board in the past. I'm sure these look familiar to you. Throughout downtown, some before and afters. This is a big transformation on Short Street, the new Dudley's, and the rooftop dining terrace that's going to be built soon. And these three were done late last year. These are some of the amazing before and after shots. The Cheapside patio, and this is one that was recently completed on West Main Street. It's a before and after. And this one is in progress currently. Another before and after on Short. And this restaurant on Short Street at 310 across from the Metropole opened recently. Statement of goals and objectives. Right now I'm serving on the Form-Based Codes and Design Guidelines Task Force. Adoption of form-based codes and or new design guidelines for the downtown area could change the review process in the overlay zone. As far as our financial records are concerned, the only revenue that we have received is for copies of documents related to open records requests. Any questions? Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Van Pelt? Thank you very much. Thank you. We're now ready for council reports. Does any member wish to make a report? Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a motion, which is to place on the docket for the Thursday, December 2, 2010, council meeting under first reading resolutions. A resolution approving a contract with the State Department of Transportation to purchase a portion of Masterson Station Park to widen Leestown Road. So moved. I have a motion to Council Member Blues, seconded by Council Member Beard. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. My council report is in the form of an update to council members. I thank you very much, those of you who have met with me about your committee preferences, and we'll be finishing that up next week. I have asked our council administrator to work with the vice mayor's office to give an update that we can all look at on current ad hoc committees and task forces that are all underway to see where those will go, whether they'll continue or go into a standing committee. Then I've also asked Paul Schonegger to look at all the issues that are in our current standing committees and to work with me to get a draft to give to you of where we will put those issues under our new structure. So that should be coming to you next week. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I would move approval of the NDEF list for this week. I have a motion to Council Member Beard, seconded by Council Member Ellinger to approve the NDEF. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few announcements, and then I also have a motion. First, I want to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving and remind folks that if you have garbage pickup recycling on Thursdays, you need to put your roll carts out tonight so it will be picked up tomorrow. And I know there are lots of folks in the 11th District that have the Thursday pickup. And then also, the Christmas parade is Friday. This Friday, the 26th at 530. And I just love Christmastime and the holidays and the lights and hope that many people will come out and join us. Now for our motion, I move to place on the docket for the December 2nd meeting an ordinance extending the term of two positions, each in the Division of Parks and Recreation, the Division of Human Resources, proposed for abolishment as of December 31st, 2010, to March 31st, 2011, and appropriating funds. So moved. I have a motion by Council Member Henson and a second by Council Member Lawless. Any discussion? All in favor? Council Member Lange. Can you tell me what the cost of that will be, please? Last, I believe, about $68,000. Any further discussion? Council Member Gordon. And to follow up on that question, do you know where that money will be found? I believe it can come from the personnel funds. Is there someone who could speak to that? The question was personnel lapse, the funds coming from personnel lapse. Personnel lapse to me is something I've spent a little bit of time on. Here we do it somewhat unique. We budget a normal churn rate just for positions that leave. That's about $1.8 million, if I remember correctly. And then we also budget for individual positions that we've identified that will leave. So it's not really an accounting string that we can take money out of, per se. And, you know, one of the things in budgeting, you always like to know exactly how much money is in the pot before you take it away from the pot. We're doing the analysis right now. As we talked about, accounting was able to get their first quarter numbers up, and we're working through our process. So in terms of how much money is in personnel lapse and can we take it from accounting string, I'm not able to say that. But I do know that we have been tracking lower than what our total budget is. So if that makes sense, that's kind of where we're at with the personnel lapse. So will you have that information if the council puts this on the docket? Will you have it before we have our vote on it? Do you know when you would have that information? When would the date be for the put it on the docket? December 2nd. In terms of hard and fast numbers, no. In terms of do we know there's extra money there, yes, we could have that piece done. That would be first reading correct. So, okay, thank you. Anything further? Council Member Beard. This is actually a question for you, actually. The $68,000, is that a gross figure salary and benefits, or is it taken into consideration that they will have some vacation payout and sick leave payout and things like that? And gross number or net number? That's a gross number. That is a gross number? Yes. So there is something less than $68,000. The number that was calculated was their base salary plus all the additional pays, longevity, pension, health benefits, and so on, funded through March 31st is what this money would put into place. So it will be. I'm assuming that there is one person that's a 20-year employee, so I'm assuming there's sick leave money and vacation money. Well, sick leave in particular would have already been budgeted in there for individuals because regardless of extending them or not, the sick leave would have been paid out in this fiscal year. This is salary, benefits, medical, the entire load, what it costs urban county government to extend them through March 31st. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett, do you wish to speak to this motion? Yes, sir. Brian, come back. I want to pick up on something you said because after today's budget and finance meeting, we see we've got a pretty big deficit facing us, even in this current fiscal year. You said that current personnel expenses are tracking below budget. Well, let me be more descriptive. Okay. In terms of the top pot, we talk about this at our 1 o'clock meeting, this money, we have a net loss on the year. We're tracking for a net loss. So regardless of the pot it comes from, on a top-line number, this money will today, based on the numbers, will come out of the Economic Contingency Fund. Because we have a net loss, you don't close your books at the end of the year with a net loss. You have to bring the money in from somewhere. So we talked about this afternoon $3.8 million roughly for closed books. Add the $60,000 on top of that. In terms of the pots, it's very sticky in terms of personnel lapse because once a year, we build an entire model, load all the costs per individual. There's not enough manpower to track when people retire, leave, and do that daily. So that's why getting a firm number on who leaves and who retires and when they retire and what day of the week, to get a firm number associated with that savings, we don't typically. It rolls all into the personnel lapse at the end of the year, which is typically why I don't believe personnel lapse, but rarely has been taken money out of that pot. And also the personnel costs include health care costs and other benefits. So the current budget has not accounted for what we heard two weeks ago, and that's the health care issue and the liability we have facing us between now and June 30th of this year. Yes, sir. It's an astute observation. We budgeted and we talked about this $135 per person per month. The additional amounts that we know we are experiencing in claims over and above that is not budgeted for. It's not budgeted for in this number. But it's something we're going to have to balance the budget with before year end because we obviously don't have enough in the rainy day fund, as you just alluded to, to take out of it to compensate for that, too, in addition to the already $5.8 million we said we'd take out. Yes, but in terms of I do want to add one qualifier to that. The personnel lapse we are experiencing will compensate and pay some or a portion of that additional health care cost. So traditionally the personnel lapse in years past rolled in at the end of the year, and that's the reason we did ever have surpluses. Okay. Well, you know, I just want to make my colleagues, you know, reiterate a point that we have a huge lapse to make up regardless of whether we keep these five or it's another five employees. A decision is going to be made between now and the end of the year how much money we're really going to take out of the rainy day fund, how much money we're truly going to have to pay in the health care cost, and all that could equate to other people losing their jobs. Whether we save these four jobs today or cut somewhere else tomorrow, we're going to have to cut something between now and the end of the year to make up this budget deficit. And I understand trying to do the right thing for some people, but let's make sure we keep that amount across the board because doing the right thing for all the employees is what the precedent we need to be setting. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers and then Council Member Wayne. Thank you, Mayor. And I guess I want to add to what Council Member Stennant said, just in the form of a question. I guess these positions were slated for layoff back in July, right? Is that correct? And the council voted to extend them and maybe extend them again until now, December 31st. So my question is, if they were laid off, and correct me if I'm wrong, because their duties have been absorbed either by other employees or by technology or whatever the issues were, we've extended their pay all this time, and I'm not sure what value add they are to the taxpayer currently. If we extend this out again, it doesn't change the fact that their work is being done by somebody else or by technology. So Council Member Stennant made another astute point in that if we save these jobs but then it costs somebody else a job later, we have to ask ourselves, if we save these jobs, what are they doing? Because we've been told their work is being done by technology or somebody else. And then we're laying off somebody else that presumably is doing something that we need done. So am I correct in that how this all started was their jobs weren't needed any longer. The council tried to extend it so that they had an opportunity to find another position either in government or somewhere else. But if we extend this again, what are we really getting for this money that we're extending the jobs for? Well, I can only speak under my department, and obviously Commissioner Cole can speak for the parks. And Acting Director Jarvis is here as well, because they are HR-related positions. And based on the workflow that she brought forward during our links process, those positions were, you were correct, were being absorbed based on the new workflow model. So whether it was what the new HCM PeopleSoft module gave us as far as technology efficiencies or whether it was just actually reorganizing the workflow, the combination of the two is the reason why we ended up with the positions that we brought forward. Several of those individuals have found other positions within the urban county government or have left the government. So we're down to these two positions. And then I can't speak for parks. Okay. Commissioner, do you want to add anything? Yes. The two positions in parks, one of them is related to the Avon golf course, which was slated to have been closed in September and now is open through the end of this month. So as the golf course closes, then the need for that position also goes away. The other one was Windburn Community Center, and we changed the focus of that program, which eliminated the need for that position. So if we extend these two positions, are they doing anything that you need done? No, they are not. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Well, I spoke on this a minute ago, but, you know, philosophically, you know, our budget is really tight. We have drawn over $5 million out of our rain day fund in the budget. We haven't technically drawn on that yet. So my thinking is that, you know, I would, you know, I lean towards not supporting this motion, but I don't want to put the vice mayor on the spot, but basically he will be the mayor in January, and this is when there will be a budget impact to his operations to the government. And I wondered if you would, do you want to speak to this at all or make any comment on that? Your guidance would be appreciated. Yeah, I think Mr. Maloney, who I've asked to serve as chief administrative officer, he sent a letter out to all council members, and in it he commented on this question. He's been circulating through the government. We now have a transition team that is being appointed and started, and he has suggested that recognizing the significance of the budget issues and also the significance of morale and issues related to the perception of fairness and equitable treatment among employees that we examine this for the next three months, along with other issues and that we deal with it then. Okay. Thank you, mayor. That's all I have. Council member blues. Thank you, mayor. Council member Hanson, could you help? Help us understand. Are there, are we talking about two positions here? More than two positions? Well, we're talking about four positions, correct? Two in human resources and two in parks and recreation. And what are the two in human resources? And I guess I have the same question that was asked of commissioner Cole and about whether these are jobs that in effect exist or whether they were slated for removal. The two positions in human resources, one of them is a human resources analyst and the other position is a staff assistant. Are these two positions needed in human resources? And look, we have looked at our workflow and monitoring, improving our efficiencies. We, they have not been sitting and doing nothing for the last six months that we kept them on board. They have been doing projects and assignments and tasks. Thank you. Council member Beard. Thank you again, mayor. I'm a little confused about something commissioner Cole, if you could come to the microphone for a second. You were talking about Avon. And we had extended that as I remember from an initial closing date. initial closing date sometime mid-summer all the way through to the 1st of November, I thought it was, and then I guess it got extended to the end of November. But when we were talking at the bond workshop, I thought I heard that we had bought or are buying carts, golf carts for Avon. Is that correct? If we're not going to open it up again, why are we buying carts for Avon? I can't speak for the council, but it would surprise me if a motion doesn't come forward at an appropriate point in time to keep Avon open on a modified schedule, instead of 12 months a year, perhaps eight months a year, in which case the carts will be necessary. That's all irrespective of whether this, whether our facilities maintenance function is performed by a civil service employee with a title of assistant golf course superintendent or some other title or some other individual. I think the two are somewhat unrelated. So what you're saying is it's anticipation of what we might do at some future date. The land out there will need to be managed, whether it's a golf course or whether it's a Frisbee something or something else. It would seem to me whether this position is eliminated or not is a budget question for you all. How we staff and perform the maintenance function on that property is perhaps a different question. But then why were we anticipating closing it in midsummer? If that was the case, it should be the case then as it is now. How the land is used is a question that we all need to decide, whether it's a golf course. I've made recommendations here about our golf courses and how many we have and how we staff them, and you have deliberated and made some judgments on that. The land out there belongs to Parks and Recreation and it may be used in a more passive function, in which case we might send someone out there periodically to mow grass and whatnot. So the Parks Department came forward in this budget reduction spirit in the spring for the 11 budget and said that we could survive without that position because we thought the golf course could be closed. You all chose not to close the golf course. You've now said it should stay up until the end of this month, but I believe that one or more of you may come forward with a motion to open that golf course eight months of the year, in which case we'll staff it at an appropriate level when that decision is made. And we own that property? It's been given to us by the state. The federal government has given it to the state. The state has a lease with us. A lease that we don't own it? I don't believe we own it. I believe we are there at the pleasure of the state government. That's what I thought. Yes, and there are interests at the State Department of Military Affairs to take some of that space from the golf course for increased security measures. So the course is likely to get smaller as they take a larger perimeter over time to protect their assets and interests. So we can buy smaller carts? I'm being facetious. I'm sorry. Thank you all very much. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you. Well first, Jerry, I have two or three questions. The person that was at Windburn Community Center? Yes. Is that position changed and somebody else took that position because another one was eliminated? Is that correct? The position at Windburn was originally slated to be eliminated, but because of the human resource bumping rules, there was a position at Dunbar that was identified as having less seniority in that classification. The position at Windburn has now been moved to Dunbar to learn the role that's performed there and is also performing a similar role at our Gainesway facility. So the person at Windburn is no longer at Windburn. That position has been moved to Dunbar and Gainesway. And the Windburn function is being performed by our ESP program, our extended school program, and it's been reduced in scope. So the person that was displaced, where were they and where are they now? The person that was at Windburn is now assisting at Dunbar and also managing some of the functions at Gainesway. So that person has been moved to a different location. And is that a needed function? Yes, Dunbar is a vibrant program and Gainesway is growing and we're adding more things there. And so, and we did just buy golf carts for Avon, is that correct? Or bonded golf carts? The golf carts at Avon are unrelated to the community center positions? Right, that's, I'm asking a question about the other position, that's the Avon golf course person. I'm sorry, I switched gears. Sorry, I didn't catch that. Yeah, that happens. We asked you to fund the purchase of golf carts for Avon. There's 30 of them there. We decided, if you decided as a council not to open Avon again, we could save about $80,000, $82,000 of the $440,000 that you have agreed to bond for golf. There are three. So right now it's up in the air as to whether or not, so extending that position, yes, three months, is that, would give some time to figure that out? Well, I think that there are members of this council who know how they want to propose opening Avon. I don't see the position and the opening of the golf course necessarily related. The individual at Avon is going to retire. Now that person could very well change their mind, but their paperwork is in to retire December 31st. If that person retires, we would come back and we could either fund Avon with a less senior position, or we can come back and fill it and keep golf there as it is now. It's really a function of your preference for how the Avon golf course is operated. And my next question is for Ms. Jarvis, please. Yes, ma'am. The two positions in HR, how do you foresee them being utilized over the next three months as the new administration is organizing or looking at personnel in each division? We have a vacancy in human resources, so there's going to be a need for some assistance in the payroll side. They'll possibly be utilized in that aspect. We have had three major employment processes going on in police and fire and corrections, so they've been needed in that. We've utilized them in open enrollment. One of them we could utilize in training classes to teach computer training. So there is a need for for those positions to stay filled at this point, and there is work for them to do? Yes, there would be work for them to do. Okay, thank you. Council Member Lane. You know, Avon golf course is in the 12th district, and of course this matter has been brought up a couple of times. It's my understanding from just my recollection of reviewing this six months ago that Avon was losing between $60,000 and $80,000 a year operationally. And you know, this sounds sort of hard to say, but I feel like we have an overabundance of golfing facilities already in our community. We're losing money at this facility, and now we're talking about, you know, bonding out golf carts for the facility and extending the personnel there. The reality is we're in a very difficult financial condition, and you know, decisions to extend a park operation or a golf course, you know, it has financial implications that will go on in for the, you know, keep on going. And so I'm just concerned. We're going to have to get a little bit tougher minded, I'm afraid, on the council, because we cannot continue to, you know, extend the golf courses, buy new golf carts when we can't afford it. I mean, it's a brutal fact. We're short on money. And I mean, I do not want to have tax increase, and if we don't make cuts that are justified, then, as George Meyer says, we'll be cutting people that we really need or we're going to have to raise taxes. And so I just feel like we have to be more sensitive about this issue. So I do not support extending the position at the golf course, and I feel like the golf course should close at the end of the year as we had planned. But, you know, if the vice mayor wants to extend the other positions, I feel like because that's his new administration and he feels like there are issues there that need to be addressed, then I would bifurcate and I would support the other positions as he requested. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I had some similar comments. Going back to the summer and our discussion of Avon golf course, we were all made aware that other than a certain period in the summer, it was losing money and that the majority of users were from out of county. And so my question right now is, because we've got one employee embedded in this motion that we've just heard is going to retire, I believe that's what I heard. Is that correct? That is the individual's intentions as I understand them. Of course, you don't have to retire just because you signed the paper. That person has a real decision to make December 31st if the position is open, available, and funded. But it's my understanding that that individual plans to retire. Well, this council voted to keep Avon open through the end of November. There's seven more days in November and there is no more work session or council meeting in November. So does anyone have a plan coming forward to keep this golf course open? Because I don't know about it and I think many council members don't know about it. So I'm very hesitant to support that position in particular when the motions that we've passed, which are on the books right now, are to close Avon in seven days. So I think if there's other information out there, today would be a really good time to hear it. So I'm wondering, Council Member Henson, if that particular position needs to come out of your motion. Before I move to amend it, I would like to hear what your thinking is on that, that one position. Originally it was not slated, it wasn't in the motion. There were only three remaining positions. And then when I spoke with Jerry and the possibility of, I wasn't really, I mean, well I'm aware of Avon and the possibility of it closing, but then working towards something else as far as that opening again. So when Jerry and I spoke, we thought since this gentleman was already on the list, you know, original list, then I included him in this. But I would be in favor of removing that position. So if you want to amend my motion or. Or you could just change your motion if you, I mean I'm happy to amend it. To remove, I move to amend the motion to remove the one position at Avon. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Gordon, second by Council Member Blues to remove the Avon position. Any discussion? All in favor of that amendment, please say aye. Motion, the motion to amend carries. Do we have anything further? All right, the motion on the floor is now Council Member Henson's motion as amended to continue three position, to place a resolution on the docket continuing three positions into the end of March. Vice Mayor Gray. I put this in context of conversation. I was talking to Council Member Beard the other day about the challenges of managing in difficult adverse economic times. And we both were saying that in longer careers and sometimes we maybe want to recall that they're often highlights in business careers or in professional careers and then there are low times. We both said that the lowest time that you have as a manager or executive is when you when you're faced with giving the news to employee or employees of a layoff. And that's something that a fellow named Jim Hardiman, who's a former chairman of the UK Board of Trustees and CEO of former retired CEO of one of the country's largest Fortune 500 companies said also at a Junior Achievement Banquet last year. He said the toughest thing you go through as a CEO or as an executive is layoffs. And any time it gets easy, I've said many times, any time it gets easy you've got a problem. The reason that Richard Maloney had recommended that we examine this carefully is that we want our employees to know how tough an effort we go through in order to ensure that we are being fair and consistent even in times of adversity. And that we have exhausted every effort to move people and migrate people within an organization, within an enterprise, in order to save and preserve jobs. And that is the, that's the reasoning and that's the background, if you will, on my point of view on this. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. First thing I want to clear up, Council Member Lane talked about he agreed with George Myers and then into that sentence he put in raising taxes and that George Myers is not going to vote to raise any vice taxes. So he might talk to Mr. Lane about that part of it. I want to be clear about that. But secondly, now that the Vice Mayor has made the comments that he made, one of the fears that I have with this whole process is that when we talk about fairness, one, I'm not sure that anything was done unfairly. But it's starting to look that way to me because other people have been laid off and they didn't have someone fighting for their position like is happening now. And, you know, there are a few people, I know at least one person on that list that's in this motion that did a pretty strong campaign to council members and sending emails and all this stuff to try to champion that person's cause. And I just go back to the reason that these layoffs were going to hit back in July was because their job is being done by either technology or somebody else. If that is in fact the case, it seems to me that's the real issue here because this is taxpayer money that we're talking about. There's no tree out back. So if we choose to keep these folks on, and as Council Member Stennett said, we end up laying off somebody else later on whose job and work we do need, that's contrary or counterintuitive to what we should do for the taxpayer. I have a couple questions. It was just stated earlier that there were some positions open in HR, at least one position, Ms. Charvis. I guess if you can come to the microphone, one of the questions I would ask, because one of the people that's on this list that's done the big campaign to get council members to support them, there were issues raised or questions raised earlier in the year about whether or not that person has applied for other positions. And there's other rumblings going around that the information that was given to the council was incorrect, that they have applied for other positions, different things. And I'm not going to ask those questions and get into that. I'm simply going to ask this. If you have a vacancy in HR, has this person applied for that? The current vacancy hasn't been posted yet. It's for the payroll manager. That person's last day was on Friday, so that position hasn't been posted yet. Okay. Is the person that is doing some of those duties, I'm going to ask this the other way, are any of the two people that are scheduled to be laid off qualified to do that job? Can they apply for that job? Anybody can apply for the position. Then it would be determined whether or not they meet the minimum qualifications for the position. Okay. So being that we just heard that it hasn't been posted yet, that's maybe why they haven't applied. But I guess I want to go back to, this is taxpayer money here, and there is no tree out back. And if, you know, we're going to have to make tough decisions one way or other on this budget, it's either going to be these three people or somebody else. So I want, if I vote, to keep, to extend this again. Really, I don't want to vote to extend it. What I want to do is, if there's a job for these folks to do, vote for them to have that job or the opportunity to get that job. But not just keep voting to extend this stuff, because next year's budget is going to be tight and we may have 20 positions that we can't fund. Are we going to just keep voting to extend those for a year until somehow we find some money to do this? If we talk about a process that needs to be fair and consistent, we need to have policies around what we do when we're faced with budget constraints that don't allow us to keep positions. And also what needs to be taken in consideration, I would think, is whether or not that position is needed. So these folks have had, and I'm not trying to be in callous or callous, I guess, but they've had an extra seven, eight, nine months to find a position inside of government. We can't just keep prolonging that. Either there's a job for them or there isn't, and that needs to be determined. So if someone will come to the microphone and explain to me, if we do this, what position these three are going to take, then I'm willing to support it. If it's wait and see what the next mayor wants to do, if the next mayor doesn't have a plan today, then I'm not in favor of that, because three months down the road, there's still not going to be a plan. So government jobs are here because there's work to be done. We can't just keep taxing people to keep people on the payroll. So I know I've been long-winded. I'm sorry for that. But if someone will tell us what these people are going to do if we extend it, then I may be able to support it. Otherwise, I can't. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Just have one housekeeping piece of business. I see Logan's in the room. Who prepared the motion for Council Member Henson and the Law Department? Because I have a real question about, you know, this is a legislative branch. And here we are saying this is an ordinance that makes the administration, which is the executive branch, keep employees. And it's really not our function as to whether or not how many employees they keep or don't keep. We pass the budget and fund position, but we don't dictate how the administration moves them around or fires them, so to speak. So why is this put in a form of an ordinance and not a resolution? Glenda George in our office had been working with Council Member Henson on an ordinance. She is out, had some family matters she needed to take care of this week, so she was not available to finish the work that she started. So the Law Department, primarily me, today in Glenda's absence, tried to put together a motion based on what Glenda had started on the ordinance. And so I'm not all that familiar with the details since Glenda's really the lead on it, but that's in answer to the question. I'm the one that put it together. Well, if you get us some clarity before Thursday night, because I've never seen this Council in six years extend positions for a certain set of time period, either without a budget, true budget amendment attached to it, or that is the ordinance, the budget amendment. Well, but Council Member Stennett, that, the resolution, or excuse me, the ordinance that you'll be placing on the docket that's the subject of the motion you're now discussing, does say that the ordinance would provide for the appropriation of necessary funds for those positions. So you would have to have that as part of the ordinance, and it would be once we determine where that money would be coming from. Yeah, but again, I'm trying to figure out between the administrative function and the legislative function. We didn't tell the administration how to cut costs last December when we were trying to save money in the budget. So how can we tell them you have to keep two positions, and in other words, does this ordinance really have any teeth? I understand. I'll get that answer for you. Okay, find that out, and you know, and given what everyone has said today, I appreciate the efforts to save people's jobs. I mean, I have the biggest heart of anybody when you hear the situation some of these folks are going through, and there's no doubt. But I also have a common-sense approach that we can get hear those kind of stories government-wide right now amongst a lot of other people, and we have to make some tough decisions. It's going to be very difficult not to have to listen to those stories and have them tug at your heart. But given what the mayor-elect has said, and if his administration would like to have some opportunity to look at the positions to see if they are needed, to see if there's another place in government, I don't have a problem with that, because that is an administrative function. That's the point I was just trying to make. I feel like council is really jumping in now to being the administration, and I know the mayor-elect will soon appreciate the difference between the two, because it's a tough job either side of the fence, and you'll get to see the other side, Vice Mayor, soon enough. But I do think this is an administrative function where they want to keep it, and if he's appealing to this council right now that he would like to have three months to look at, then I would support it. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a couple comments. One big reason that I brought this forward was the one individual that I come back to that has been here for 20 years and is just a few months shy of receiving full retirement, and I would think in any company a position would be found for that person. Now, it still remains to be said, has that person done everything that they should do to find something within the government on their own? But I would also think that it would be part of our job to assist that person with finding employment within government, and I know that we are in very, very hard times. The only thing I was asking is to allow the new administration to take a look at this. There are three people here that are also taxpayers, Mr. Myers, and I realize this is taxpayer dollars, but all of our government employees are taxpayers, and it just deserves a second look at. So that's all I'm asking. Thank you. Motion on the floor is to add a resolution or ordinance to the docket for December 2nd, continuing three positions. Council Member Lawless. So on the question as to whether or not it needs to be an ordinance or resolution, has that been established? I don't think that was really the question. It was a question of the substance. Is it getting into an administrative function versus a legislative function? But whether it's an ordinance or resolution really isn't. Subject of debate. I'm going to vote to support this. What I'm hearing is there is a payroll manager position that is going to be vacant at a time when a lot will be going on with payroll, open enrollment, W-2s coming out, etc., and certainly the funds for that position and the work that's going to be there in HR is clearly, seems to me, there's going to be plenty of work for them for the next three months. And it sounds to me like Parks is utilizing the third employee in question and that they are providing a needed function. So I support this and appreciate what Council Member Henson said about one employee being close to retirement. And certainly that's, we don't want to do that, but that's not why I'm supporting it. I'm supporting it because it sounds like the work is there to be done, the funds are there to keep them, and there may be in three months they, there isn't going to be a position or a position found for them. So that I support that for that reason. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to respond since my name was called out. A couple things. We have been fair. They've had an extra nine months to find a position inside of government. And when you make the statement that they're close to retirement, we ought to just let them hang around until they get their time in. I guess, I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's what we do with taxpayer dollars. And the final thing I would say is that that person could buy those last few months or whatever it takes to get full retirement. And that's what most people do. So I don't think I'm being callous. I don't think that's how we deal with taxpayer money. And that's all I'll say. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I really, in this case, am going to. We're sitting here talking about $68,000 for these individuals. We're talking about the need and requirement for further study of what these individuals do or can do or might do. And we just shrug our shoulders and say, oh yeah, $80,000 for 30 golf carts, for a golf course that isn't going to open. The dichotomy goes beyond my, I can't even think, right? I can imagine whomever is listening to this that is an employee would wonder where our priorities stand also. I'm supporting the ordinance purely on the basis of the fact that Richard asked us to so that he can have an opportunity to kind of get hands-on with the situation and see what can be done. It may end up that that's still going to be the answer, but at least everybody will feel right about it. And I still wish that we could get our arms around this whole question of golf courses. We've got a bunch of them utilized by 4% of our constituents. And maybe now is the time that we need to study each and every golf course and see if we actually need as many as we have. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I too am very concerned about our finances and the difficult choices that we have really in the very immediate future. I do, however, feel very deferential to Vice Mayor Gray, Mayor Lett Gray, and the desire for him and his team to further assess our personnel needs and to decide how he wants to structure the administration and the government. So I'm going to support this and to give him the opportunity to determine how they want to adjust these positions. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Blues. Thank you, Mayor. It was observed a few moments ago that that the funds are there. If the funds were there, we wouldn't have to have this rather painful and difficult discussion or all the painful and difficult discussions that are going to come up in the near future. So I'm certainly willing to support the motion to put this on the docket, but in order to vote favorably on it, we'll have to find out whether whether there are funds available. I think this is a, this is this council's and this administration's issue. This administration, this council made this budget and we are facing some serious shortfalls. So I will support the motion, but I do expect by the time we come to vote on it that we will have a real answer as to whether whether funds are available and whether these positions are needed to do the work of the government. Thank you, Mayor. Let me address the availability of the funds. I mean, when the budget was presented last April, I said then we had a 15 million dollar structural imbalance in the budget and given a whole array of bad choices, I thought it made more sense to dip into the rainy day fund in order to balance the budget. So Mr. Barrow, correct me if I'm wrong, but the short of this is the money is there if you want to dip into the economic contingency account. That's it. It's not anywhere else. So the question is whether we want to take another sixty eight thousand dollars out of the rainy day fund for purposes of keeping these individuals employed three extra months. Is that a fair characterization? Yes, sir. All right. Council Member Henson. I wanted to make a minor correction too, since we did take out the one position at Parks and Rec that was removed in the amendment, the total amount will be about thirty five thousand dollars less. Right, Brian? I believe it's fifty thousand four hundred dollars. How much? Fifty thousand four hundred dollars. Okay. Thank you. And let me understand, are we now talking about having to expend fifty thousand additional dollars or are we talking about that sixty instead of sixty eight? Are we talking about the sixty eight being reduced by fifty thousand? The sixty eight was for individuals and what I've heard is the individual from Avon has been removed so now the new total would be fifty thousand four hundred. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. A couple of points. One, we should never diminish the value of fifty thousand dollars or five thousand dollars or sixty eight thousand dollars and I'm not doing that. But there are a lot of moving parts in this budget right now. Right, Mr. Senate Chairman of the budget? Lots of moving parts. Yeah, right. The unanticipated shortfall, potential shortfall in the health care area claims. Seven million could be more, could be less. Lots of moving parts. I didn't say earlier because I didn't want to sound pretentious or presumptuous. I have sat in a room and had to lay off 50 people at one time. That is hard, real hard and you never forget it. And all I'm saying and all I think is being said here is that when we are talking and we are down to two people out of 3,200, when we are talking at that level, then the awareness for its impact is significant. It is a significant awareness that we must call ourselves to because yes, it very well could be more and for us to earn the respect of the employees in decisions like this is really what we are doing. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion place that item on the docket? Seeing none, those in favor of adding that item to the docket please indicate by saying aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Does any other council member wish to make a report? I have only one minor thing to say and that is that Commissioner Bennett, Chief Ronnie Bastin and I paid a visit this afternoon earlier with Officer Chris Eden. As many of you may recall, Officer Eden was recently wounded in combat in Afghanistan. I'm pleased to report he's making good progress. He is a remarkable individual. If you haven't had the opportunity to visit with him, I assure you, you will be impressed and I hope you have the opportunity to get to know him soon. He is somebody that our Division of Police should be very proud of and our country should be very proud of. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on matters not on today's agenda? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? I have a motion by Council Member Stennett and a second by Council Member Beard to adjourn. All in favor please say aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. Thank you.