# Council Committee of the Whole Work Session - March 1, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 1, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1898 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1898?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-03-01 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 19,940 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council met on March 1, 2011, at 3:00pm at the Government Center, with Vice Mayor Gorton presiding. The council addressed 13 agenda items during the session, including multiple readings of ordinances and resolutions, a review of budget amendments, and a presentation on fire overtime. The council took 9 motions and votes and heard 4 public comments from citizens on issues related to the agenda. The meeting followed standard procedural order, beginning with public comment on agenda items and approval of the summary, followed by reviews of the docket and various legislative readings. In addition to the formal legislative business, the council received committee reports and council reports, and heard public comment on issues not on the agenda. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 1, 2011: * Vice Mayor Gorton * Council Member Ellinger * Council Member Beard * Council Member Martin * Council Member Crosbie * Council Member Blues * Council Member Henson * Council Member Lane * Council Member Ford * Council Member Myers * Council Member McChord * Council Member Lawless * Council Member Stinnett No council members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 065-11** [timestamp: 00:09:48] Motion to table item 10 under Ordinances 1 Reading until the next Committee of the Whole meeting on March 15, 2011, moved by Council Member Martin and seconded by Council Member Beard. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 5 nays. Voting in favor were Council Members Ellinger, Beard, Martin, Crosbie, Blues, Henson, Lane, Ford, Myers, and McChord. Voting against were Council Members Lawless and Stinnett. **Ordinance 068-11** [timestamp: 00:23:14] Motion to refer to the Thursday, March 3 Council Meeting an ordinance amending Section 2-151(b) of the Code of Ordinances to allow members of the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission to be employed in Fayette County, moved by Council Member Henson and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. **Resolution 075-11** [timestamp: 00:24:19] Motion to refer to the Thursday, March 3 Council Meeting a request for a multiway stop sign at Ridgecane Road and Sebastian Lane, moved by Council Member Martin and seconded by Council Member Crosbie. The motion passed by voice vote. **Resolution 077-11** [timestamp: 00:25:56] Motion to remove Spotlight Lexington reimbursement from the Public Safety/Public Works Committee, moved by Council Member Crosbie and seconded by Council Member Blues. The motion passed by voice vote. **Resolution 070-11 (Fire Overtime Presentation)** [timestamp: 00:44:39] Motion to extend the Fire Overtime Presentation time by 10 minutes, moved by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Myers. The motion passed by voice vote. **Closed Session** [timestamp: 02:19:14] Motion to go into closed session under KRS 61.810(1) for discussion of employee discipline or dismissal, moved by Council Member Lane and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. **Return to Open Session** [timestamp: 02:19:50] Motion to return to open session, moved by Council Member Crosbie and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. **Resolution 070-11 (Fire Leadership)** [timestamp: 02:21:23] Motion to place on the docket a resolution expressing no confidence in the current leadership of the Division of Fire, moved by Council Member Ford and seconded by Council Member Myers. The motion passed by roll call vote with 13 ayes and 0 nays. All voting members voted in favor. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 02:22:30] Motion to adjourn, moved by Council Member Lane and seconded by Council Member Crosbie. The motion passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed overtime costs for the Division of Fire through Resolution 070-11, which proposed an amendment of $420,000 to cover these expenses. ## Public Comment Council members made several announcements regarding community projects and events during this portion of the meeting. **Clays Mill Road Project** [timestamp: 02:13:03] Council Member McChord announced that the Clays Mill Road project has begun construction. He invited citizens to join an email tree to receive updates on the project's progress. McChord also noted two additional infrastructure developments: Wellington Way School will go online in August, and the intersection of Harrodsburg and New Circle will be reconfigured during the summer. **Ruby Bailey Center Benefit** [timestamp: 02:14:42] Council Member Crosbie announced a barbecue event scheduled for March 4th at the Government Center. The event will benefit the Ruby Bailey Center in Woodhill, which serves refugees and veterans. **Community Meetings and Remembrance** [timestamp: 02:15:46] Council Member Lawless notified the council of upcoming neighborhood association meetings. He also shared news of the passing of Larry Stirr, a community figure from John's Run Walk Shop. **Stream Clean-Up and Firefighters' Recognition** [timestamp: 02:16:18] Council Member Henson announced a stream clean-up event scheduled for April 30th, which will focus on Wolf Run and Vaughn's Branch. Henson also shared positive reflections from his attendance at the Firefighters' Awards Banquet. ## Contested Items The March 1, 2011 meeting included two major areas of contention: **Fire Department Overtime and Collective Bargaining** Council members engaged in heated discussion regarding the fire department's overtime budget, staffing shortages, and associated financial obligations. The debate centered on the financial impact of comp time and collective bargaining agreements. Several council members raised concerns about the transparency and accountability of the collective bargaining process, with some calling for greater council oversight of these agreements and their budgetary consequences. **Budget Transparency and Management** Council members expressed significant frustration over the late disclosure of the fire department's overtime budget issues. Some members characterized the delayed revelation as a "conspiracy of silence" on the part of senior management. The discussion reflected broader concerns about financial planning and reporting practices, with council members calling for improved transparency and more timely communication regarding budget matters that could substantially impact municipal finances. ## Public Comment – Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:04:01] No public comments were made on issues on the agenda during this portion of the meeting. The meeting proceeded directly to the next agenda item. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 00:04:32] The Council considered approval of the amended summary from the February 15, 2011 meeting. The summary had been revised to include corrections to names and spelling from the previous meeting record. Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Beard, and Mr. Farmer participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The motion to approve the amended summary passed without dissent. ## Review of Docket [timestamp: 00:05:35] The Council reviewed the docket during this agenda item. Two main matters were discussed. Council members raised questions regarding the creation of a position in the Division of Water Quality. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Martin participated in this discussion, though the specific details of their questions and concerns were not documented. The Council also addressed the Community Corrections Policy and Procedure Manual. A motion to table this item was brought forward and passed, deferring further discussion or action on this matter to a later time. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature. ## First Reading of Ordinances [timestamp: 00:06:05] Council discussed the first reading of an ordinance regarding the creation of a position in the Division of Water Quality for a three-year term. The position was proposed to address flooding obligations under a consent decree. Council Member Farmer participated in the discussion of this agenda item. No vote was taken on the ordinance during this meeting, as the item was presented for informational purposes at the first reading stage. ## First Reading of Resolutions [timestamp: 00:12:39] During the first reading of resolutions, the Council reviewed a wayfinding sign program change order. Kevin Wente presented information about the project, which involved modifications to the sign program's scope or implementation. Council Member Farmer raised concerns regarding the project's completion status and the base installation for the wayfinding signs. These concerns centered on whether the work would be finished as planned and whether the foundational installation work was proceeding appropriately. In response, the contractor confirmed that the project completion was on track. The contractor also noted that the contract value came in at $9,000 under the second-lowest bid, indicating the project was being completed at a favorable cost relative to competing proposals. The item was treated as informational, with no formal action taken during this first reading. ## Second Reading of Ordinances During the second reading of ordinances, no questions or motions were raised by the body. The item proceeded without discussion and was passed to the next agenda item. [timestamp: 00:17:54] ## Second Reading of Resolutions [timestamp: 00:15:49] During the second reading of resolutions, the Council reviewed an amendment related to the Kentucky Theater Management Group. Council Member Henson raised questions regarding the proposed short-term extension, expressing concerns about the lack of responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP). Henson sought clarification on why alternative proposals had not been received and what the timeline looked like for the extension. Jomsheed, representing the department, confirmed that negotiations were ongoing with the Kentucky Theater Management Group. The department indicated that discussions were still in progress regarding the terms and conditions of the potential agreement. The item was treated as informational in nature, with no formal vote or action taken at this time. The outcome reflected the Council's intent to receive an update on the status of negotiations rather than to make a final determination on the resolution. ## Review of Budget Amendments The Council reviewed budget amendments during this agenda item, with discussion focusing on two specific funding matters. [timestamp: 00:18:29] **Key Topics Discussed** Council members addressed funding for tree replacement at Masterson Station Park and food costs associated with the Sweet 16 event. A significant point of clarification emerged during the discussion: the funds for these expenditures came from donations rather than the general budget. **Key Speakers** Council Member Farmer, Council Member Stinnett, and Elizabeth McGee participated in this discussion. **Outcome** The item was handled as informational in nature, with no formal action required. The clarification regarding the source of funds—donations rather than general budget allocations—resolved the budget amendment review. ## Referral of Issues by Council Members [timestamp: 00:20:48] During this agenda item, council members referred several matters to the next meeting for further consideration and action. **Items Referred:** - Amendments to the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission ordinance - A multiway stop sign request - Removal of Spotlight Lexington reimbursement **Key Participants:** Council Member Henson, Council Member Martin, and Council Member Crosbie participated in this discussion. **Outcome:** The referrals were noted for informational purposes, with these items scheduled for consideration at a subsequent meeting. ## Fire Overtime Presentation Assistant Chief Mike Gribben presented a detailed overview of fire department overtime operations [timestamp: 00:27:46]. The presentation addressed multiple factors affecting overtime expenditures, including staffing shortages, impacts from collective bargaining agreements, and the accumulation of compensatory time. **Key Topics Covered** The presentation examined budget trends related to overtime spending and explored how staffing levels influence overtime requirements. Gribben also discussed the implications of collective bargaining agreements on overtime practices and addressed the management of accumulated compensatory time within the department. **Participants** The discussion involved Assistant Chief Mike Gribben as the primary presenter, with participation from David Mattingly, Richard Jordan, Keith Jackson, George Wolfbrand, and Marshall Briggs. **Outcome** The presentation was informational in nature and was extended by 10 minutes beyond its originally scheduled time, indicating substantial discussion or questions from the attending members. No specific decisions or action items were recorded as outcomes from this agenda item. ## Committee Reports Council Member Myers reported on the Social Services Committee meeting. The committee discussed partner agency employee reductions, the United Way partnership, and Department of Social Services programs. [timestamp: 02:02:05] Council Member Blues reported on the Environmental Quality Committee meeting. The committee reviewed departmental reports and transition team findings. [timestamp: 02:02:05] This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. ## Council Reports [timestamp: 02:13:03] Council members provided updates on various projects and community events during this informational segment. **Key Speakers:** - Council Member McChord - Council Member Crosbie - Council Member Lawless - Council Member Henson **Topics Discussed:** The council members addressed several matters affecting the community: - **Clays Mill Rd Project**: An update was provided on the status and progress of this project. - **Neighborhood Meetings**: Council members announced upcoming neighborhood meetings for community engagement. - **Community Recognition**: The council acknowledged the passing of a community member. **Outcome:** This agenda item was informational in nature, with council members sharing updates rather than taking formal action or votes. ## Public Comment – Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 02:19:14] No public comments were made during the public comment period for issues not on the agenda. Following this segment, the meeting proceeded to closed session. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 065-11** — tabled (10-5): Motion to table item 10 under Ordinances 1 Reading until next COW on 3.15.11 - **Ordinance 068-11** — passed: Motion to refer to Thursday March 3 Council Meeting amending Section 2-151(b) of the Code of Ordinances to allow members of the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission to be employed in Fayette County - **Resolution 075-11** — passed: Motion to refer to Thursday March 3 Council Meeting a request for a multiway stop sign at Ridgecane Rd and Sebastian Ln - **Resolution 077-11** — passed: Motion to remove Spotlight Lexington reimbursement from Public Safety/Public Works Committee - **Resolution 070-11** — passed: Motion to extend Fire Overtime Presentation time by 10 minutes - **Resolution 070-11** — passed: Motion to go into closed session under KRS 61.810(1) for discussion of employee discipline or dismissal - **Resolution 070-11** — passed: Motion to return to open session - **Resolution 070-11** — passed (13-0): Motion to place on the docket a resolution expressing no confidence in the current leadership of the Division of Fire - **Resolution 070-11** — passed: Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Welcome. Welcome. Today is March 1, 2011, and we will now open the Committee of the Whole work session. And the first item on our agenda is public comment. Does anyone wish to comment on issues which are on the agenda? If you do, please make your way to the podium. And I see no one. So we'll move on to approval of the summary from February 15th. This is on pages one through three. I've had a motion from Council Member Ellinger, second from Council Member Beard. Are there corrections or additions? Mr. Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On page three, here at the bottom, we just need to change that to Council Member Lane as opposed to Vice Mayor Lane. I thought you might make that one. I need all the help I can get. Very good. You caught that. And they're also on page, the same page, page 3, under Council Member Kay and Vice Mayor Gorton comments. That is the Fund for the Arts as opposed to Fun for the Arts, which also does occur. But if you'll add a D. Are there other corrections or additions? If not, all those in favor of approving with the changes say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. And the next item on our docket, on our agenda, is review of the docket. And I want to thank Jeanette Williams for placing the docket within the agenda in order. that we will consider it. So the first thing we will look at is first reading of ordinances. Council members, do you have any items you want to refer to committee, get additional information on, or remove from the docket, if you'll log in, please? Okay. Council Member Farmer. Thank you. Mine is on page 25. It is new business item 15. It's on for first reading to create a position in the Division of Water Quality. And I know the answer to this, but I just wanted to make sure it was part of public syntax, if you will. This position is being created for a period of three years. That's correct. Which is the amount of time we have to solve these problems, correct? Basically, yes. This position is created exclusively to be able to complete the supplemental environmental project as listed in the consent decree related to our flooding obligation. And we have to do a lot of that in the next three years. Yes. What we're developing is essentially a master plan or a strategic plan as far as dealing with our flooding problem. The SEP, or the Supplemental Environmental Project, requires two main things. One is that we reevaluate and reconfigure, if necessary, the existing priority list. And secondly is that we committed to spend $30 million on flooding projects over the course of 10 years. this person that's going to be their exclusive responsibility is to get us set up to be able to meet those obligations. Knowing it's a three-year position, do you think you have any problem filling it? No, I don't think so. I've talked to a few people already. I've got one person in mind I think that has unique qualifications for this job. Very good. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Are there other questions from Councilmembers? Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Item 10 on the Division of Community Corrections Policy and Procedure Manual. Is there someone able to talk to us about that? Commissioner. Director Bishop, welcome. Afternoon. Has this been sent around to Council? I'm sorry? Has this been sent to Council? The manual itself, I'm not sure. Once it leaves us, it goes to the law department, and I'm not sure there's circulation after that. Other than what would typically happen with the blue sheet, I'm going to say no. We're just, I mean, it's a fairly lengthy document. Is that right? Yeah. It's not huge, but it's fairly lengthy. Is it possible to get a black line of what the changes are being made? Because we're basically being asked to approve changes to. I don't see why that would be a problem. I think Community Corrections maintains a black line copy. There aren't any real significant changes to the manual from the last time that the Council approved it. There are only a couple of changes, but I don't know why Community Corrections couldn't provide that, if that's what. Vice Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to table item 10 until the next work session so that we can see an informational copy of the changes being made. So Moon. Okay, so Council Member Martin has recommended to go to Thursday night tabling number 10, and Council Member Beard has seconded that. And motion to table is non-debatable. Except as to time. My motion was to table until the next work session. Yes, which will be two weeks. Okay. Okay. So all those in favor of tabling, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. Okay, let's take a, can we take an electronic vote? Did you have a question on time? Yes, I do. So if we table this until the next work session, which is two weeks, The first reading would be then two weeks following Thursday. Actually, the next work session is the 15th of March, and the council meeting is the 17th. So that will be the first opportunity. So can we have an electronic vote, please? We'll get set up here in just a second. Okay. All those in favor of tabling number 10, until the next work session, please log in. Those opposed, please log in. Is there a 15 more short one vote? So, okay, can you... Do you want to voice vote while the – Council Member Martin? I vote yes. You vote yes. So that's 10 to 5. The motion passes to table until the next work session. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Are there other first reading of ordinances that need to be addressed? Okay. If not, we will move on to page 6, first reading of resolutions. Are there items where you have questions you want to remove or refer to committee? Mr. Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mine is on page 45. It is item number 41 on for first reading. It has to do with the wayfinding sign program and a change order, I guess, for finishing that out. And I just want to make sure that before we appropriate these funds that they have completed their job. And for a long time the signs went without bases on them. Now some bases have been applied to some of the signs, but I notice particularly the one out on Richmond Road in front of the McDonald's has come apart. I just want to make sure that they are complete with all things they're supposed to do before we sanction this, even though it's time for first reading. I wanted to have that be part of public discussion. Thank you. Kevin Wente is here. Did you want to speak to this? Yes. We've actually completed the construction phase as of Sunday, so all the signs that we have elected to put in place have been installed. The change order is actually covering some of the corrections that had to be made during the course of construction. For example, on Newtown Pike, we constructed in the median to which the state requested us to put it on the outside of the right-of-way. And then we had some other corrections as a result of utility conflicts to where we had to make additional adjustments. So that's, in terms of the $14,000, that should be the final change order for that. That's correct, to end that contract. And what's notable about that, even with this second change order, the contract price is still roughly about $9,000 less than our second lowest bid for this project. So I want you to be aware of that. Likewise, I want to make sure the bases are all on before we pay them. Absolutely. Thank you. We're holding on to the retainer for that as well. I appreciate that, Kevin. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Kevin, can I ask you a question? I know we've changed the name of Applebee's Park. Is that going to be coming with the, because I think the wayfinders are. I actually met with Jake Thayer today with the Lexington Legends, and they are going to pay for, we're going to have additional panels produced and riveted onto the existing sign. The reason we elected to go with that direction is that 3M would not warranty our signs if we were just to remove the vinyl. So they've been gracious enough to offer to pay for that, and they're going to install that. Okay, thank you. And that should be done within the next week or two. Are there other questions for first reading of resolutions? Council Member Crosby? I have a question on number 20 and 21. It appears to be General Services, Parks. There's somebody here. Is there anyone here from Parks who could answer this? or perhaps Jomsheed, welcome. Thank you. Hopefully it's a painless question. Were these the low bids? Yes. Thank you. Okay. All right. Jomsheed, if you don't mind to come back to the podium, please. On number three, can you tell me why the Kentucky Theater Management Group amendment is just seven months through October 31st? Part of our initial phases were to evaluate all the current leases. This is one management agreement that cities had with a specific group for a while. We decided to reissue a new RFP, which would, in my opinion, be more mutually beneficial to LFECGA as well as the management group. We advertised, and we did not get any response back, so we had some further discussions. So there's some changes being made right now as we speak, and we're going to re-release that RFP. And we feel like it's going to take by the time we get RFP out there and accept proposals, evaluate them, and award them, probably looking at about a six-month period. So the decision was made to ask for an extension with all the extension of the exact same contract as we got right now. And that gives us enough time to go ahead and get a good contract put together. Okay. Thank you very much. Sure. Council members, are there other items? First reading of, okay, Council Member Crosby has a follow-up question. I'm sorry, can you just clarify, did you say that you had sent out an RFP and there were no responses, so you're in the process? We received, Stan, correct, received one response that it was incomplete, so technically it was null and void. So we reached out to the only group that actually provided us the response and figured out that there was some language in the RFP that they had some concerns with. So we're negotiating and discussing with purchasing and contracting, trying to make sure we're addressing those concerns. Was it the current group? Was that the only response to the RFP? Okay, thank you. Sure. Okay. If there are no further first reading of resolutions, we'll move on to page 9. And second reading of ordinances. Are there questions, referrals to committee, or removals? If not, we will move to page 11 to second reading of resolutions. Council members, any questions, removals, referrals? If not, our next agenda item is review of budget amendments, and those are found on page 6, starting on 16 of the packet. Are there any questions? Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mine's on the very last journal entry, Parks and Recreation, to recognize funds from the Kentucky Department of Transportation to replace Masterson Station Park trees and the sign that will be lost due to the widening of Leastown Road. Having been around but not here for this, So I'm just wondering how many trees are we talking about? Council Member Blues, do you know the answer? I don't know the exact number, but that whole line of trees at the front of the park will go. I was afraid that was the answer, but thank you. Okay. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Journal number 50286-87 on page 16. Under special programs, this is provide funding for the Sweet 16 to cover food costs. Isn't this a line item in the budget already to cover the entire cost of Suite 16? I think we put that in our budget on a yearly basis. Are we adding money to that? And why are we adding at this point? Do we have anyone that can answer that? Mr. Maloney or Elizabeth McGee? Or did we forget to put food in there? I know that a portion of these funds are from revenues received for Suite 16 specifically. So their donations received for the program to offset these expenses. And who were they received from? I could double-check with Lori to see who the donations came in from. So this is not coming from general funding? No, no, no. These are donations. These are all run out of our donations fund, just like Fourth of July and those events. It just doesn't simply say that. But if you could give me, though, who's donating the money, it would be great. Absolutely. Thank you. Other questions about budget amendments? If not, we'll move right on to the next agenda item, which is referral of issues by Council members. And does anyone have an issue they'd like to refer? Council Member Henson? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had recently sent an email with a copy of the ordinance for the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission, and it's just a minor change in the ordinance to read either live or have been employed in Fayette County. So I move to, I guess it's a motion, right? Yes, that would be in order. To place on the docket an ordinance amending section 2-151B of the Code of Ordinance to provide that members of the Keep Lexington Beautiful Commission may be employed in Fayette County to be eligible for board membership. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion? This would be to move to report out on Thursday night? Correct. And would you have, does law have the? They actually put it. So you'll forward that to council members? It's already been emailed, but I can send it again. Again? That's probably a good idea. Because I wanted to send it ahead of time just in case there were questions. Thank you. Any questions about that particular motion? Council Member Blues? My question is, what is the rationale for the motion? The original ordinance said that you had to live in Fayette County, So there are many companies within Fayette County that have very good representation that maybe the representative of that company lives out of county. So in the instance, we have a board commission member who works for Pepsi Cola, which is a very good company within the city. But he also lives in Lexington, but if it were the other way around, he would not be able to be a member of the commission. Thank you. Are there other questions about the motion? Council Member Martin, was your question about the motion? Okay. Okay. All those in favor of the motion to refer this to Thursday night to place on the docket, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. And are there other items to be referred by Council Members? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to refer to the March 3, 2001 Council meeting, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multiway stop controls at Ridgecane Road and Sebastian Lane. So moved. Council Member Crosby seconded that. And can you get a copy of your motion to Jeanette, please? I sure can. Okay. And is there any discussion about the motion? Can I explain just briefly? Yes. Just for the record, this has been reviewed by the Department of Traffic Engineering, and they have no opposition to this because of the sidelines and the stopping distance needed, and the motion was reviewed by law. Okay. Excellent. And Council Member Lawless? Thank you. Is this a multi-way stop sign? Yes. Not a light? No. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions about the motion to refer to Thursday night to place on the docket, correct? And you'll get that motion to Jeanette. In fact, Vice Mayor, I think I'm going to, instead of saying multi-way stop controls, I would change that to sign just for clarity, if I may. Is that okay, Council Member Crosby? All right. Does our seconder agree with that? Thank you, Council Member Crosby. Any other questions or comments about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. No opposed. Thank you. And, Council Member Crosby, did you have an item to refer? Actually, I have an item to remove that was previously referred to committee, And I had asked that we refer to committee looking at reimbursements for Spotlight Lexington and somebody else had tied in the World Equestrian Games, and mine was specifically geared towards public safety. We've received that information, and I'm not sure that it needs to go to committee. And there's a private group that's in the community that's moving forward with efforts to continue Spotlight Lexington and do some things from the private sector. and certainly we don't want to impede anything that they're trying to do with something that we really can't do anything about. So your motion is to remove that out of, I had referred it to the Public Safety Committee. The Spotlight Lexington Report. Yes. Okay. And I would ask that we remove that. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. Is there any discussion? Council Member Martin? Could you restate the motion just? My motion was to remove from committee the reimbursement for public safety expenses related to Spotlight Lexington. I believe everybody on the council got information regarding both Spotlight Lexington and the World Equestrian Games. So my portion was just Spotlight Lexington. We're removing it. We have our answer. Thank you. Are there other questions about the motion? If not, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That will go to report out Thursday night. Other items to refer? If not, we have on page 55 for your information the NDF report, and that does not require a vote. So the next item is the fire overtime presentation, and Commissioner Clay Mason, I will call to the podium to introduce the Assistant Chief who will give the report. Welcome. Thank you. Council Members, a few weeks ago there was a request made for a presentation on fire overtime, and I asked the executive staff to be here to make a presentation, which they have done. They have a PowerPoint presentation in order to be thorough to examine all aspects of the fire overtime circumstance. With that said, I have Assistant Chief Mike Gribben who will give the presentation. Also present are David Mattingly, Richard Jordan, Keith Jackson, George Wolfbrand, and Marshall Briggs to make sure we have the ability to completely answer whatever questions you have. Thank you, Vice Mayor, members of Council. I think they are loading the PowerPoint right now. I understand it has been distributed to all of you. Hopefully we can explain it, maybe let you know some of the things that affect our overtime. This is on page 56 of the packet. I think I need a little technical help here. Anyway, we were asked to present a presentation on effects of what affected our overtime and some of the points that we have come up with for your review. This is a review of our last five years of budget. If you see in the column marked budget for physical year 2011, we were budgeted $820,000, where the previous years we had been budgeted, well, the low one there is $1.9 million, so about half of our 07 budgeted amount. Over in the far right-hand column for you is the amount we either had left over or were overdrawn. If you notice, in 2009, we were over by about $150,000 or $160,000 there. That is the year that we were about 50 positions short throughout the year. So we had a hard time continuing to man trucks that year. And that year we did not have any brownouts or any program closures because of that. We were able to keep everything open. A few of the things we're going to talk about are historical perspective, description of our staffing, the collective bargaining agreement, our contractual leave requirements, and the opportunity to choose either overtime or comp time, and how you earn the comp time and the use of that comp time and the effect on the division. As a historical perspective, there was virtually no overtime prior to 2004. There was occasional late runs. We had money for paramedic training, which started in 1977, some specialty training, which was rare. And during that time, you could also flex time or have someone else work for you if you weren't able to get off. But there was no budgetary impact that we had to cover for. During that time, also, there was no authorized increase in our strength except to add companies in those 34 years. This is currently 92% of our staffing or 499 positions are out manning trucks on the street, delivering service every day. This looks, there should be a newer PowerPoint or a newer slide than this because the bottom line there where it says negative 45 online, we are currently, we just graduated class, we are currently negative 20 on the line. I think you all may have got the right PowerPoint, but that one's incorrect up there. Anyway, 499 positions. Currently we have 479 of those are filled and are on the line delivering service to the citizens. 46 positions, or 8% of our staffing, are in bureaus, fire prevention, community service, fire investigation, training, garage, building maintenance, administration. We're also supplemented by 20 civilian positions with five of them are currently vacant. Some of these things are required by Kentucky Revised Statute, such as investigation. We're required by KRS to investigate all fires that are happening in the county. Collective bargaining in 2004, the legislature enacted a collective bargaining for Fayette County for police and firefighters. June 3rd of 2005, the LFUCG signed the first contract with Lexington Firefighters, Lieutenants, and Captains. Some of the provisions of this collective bargaining agreement, this actually is in the second collective bargaining agreement. The first one had 22 leave slots. The second one now has 24 leave slots that are guaranteed per shift per the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, we have to let 24 people off every day by the collective bargaining agreement. Six more slots can be let off on comp time, which is then filled by the fire administration, the staff working, the fire staff working, has to go out and find the six firefighters to work back for those six. So that's 30 folks a day that we pretty much have to find people for. Now, if we go over that 30, if more people want off, they can take off on comp time, and it's unlimited. The only requirement in this part of it is that the employee has to fill the vacancy. They have to find somebody that will work for them, but we're still on the hook for the overtime to be paid for them. And also in the majors contract requires three additional slots for majors on each shift. Some of the other things that affect our shift staffing are military leave, disability leave, light duty, sick, administrative leave, union business. A long list there. You can see all those. I don't need to go into them. Just as an example here. I think I went too far. I'm sorry? Right. I'm sorry. The Commissioner pointed out the highlight up there that there's 8 to 10 vacancies per shift that are on one of these different leaves. I think in your packet, there should be an example of military usage. Our division currently has 17 employees enlisted in the military. Those folks are given 240 hours of military leave per year for training. This equates to about 10 shift days. Active duty members have to be let off by USERA, the United States, what is this? Uniformed Services. Uniformed services, employment, it's federal law. They have to be let off. And the way this would work or the way it can affect us is in blackout days when the, and I'm reading from your PowerPoint, I hope you got it, during blackout days. And a blackout day is when all those other leave benefit slots are filled. There's no available time slots to put those folks in. They have to be put in there on comp time, that type of thing. For the military leave, we're expecting another additional 117 shifts to be affected using the military leave that will likely affect manning on the trucks and require overtime. It equates to about 2,880 hours of overtime and an average of $47 an hour. or another $140,000 thereabout. There's an additional 201 shifts are scheduled but may require, or that are scheduled but may not require overtime because these have not reached to the blackout portions yet, or a total of 318 shifts will be affected for the remainder of the year by military leave. Now I'm caught back up. Now, when a person takes off and they have two ways to accept their compensation for working back for somebody that's off, they can take overtime pay, which is paid out at the standard time and a half, or they can take compensatory time, which is given to them at a rate of one and a half hours for each hour that they work. that they can use at any other time, like, for example, when a day is blacked out. An example of this would be that Firefighter Jones works a 12-hour overtime shift. He elects to receive comp time as allowed by the collective bargaining agreement. This results in Firefighter Jones adding 18 hours to his comp time balance. On a day when the 24 collective bargaining agreement slots are full, Jones wants to take off. He has to use his 18 hours of comp time. And to maintain the level of service to the citizens, we have Firefighter Smith work those 18 hours for Jones. Firefighter Smith elects to receive his compensation in comp time, and he's credited with 17 hours of comp time. It kind of goes on down. Last guy there receiving 40 and a half hours. This original 12 hours of overtime, which would have cost us $564, has now ballooned to $1,903.50. So this really, the comp time really has a way of ballooning into bigger amounts. per contract comp time may be utilized with one day's notice regardless of your time on the job rank or assignment and one day to firefighters and I know this is I need to explain it is our previous work day which would be three calendar days out because we worked 24 off 48 so firefighter Brown again He's been on the job less than 18 months. He's accumulated 24 hours of comp time by working overtime. He can notify his supervisor before 9 o'clock on December the 22nd of his intent to be off on December the 25th, one of our heaviest days of the year that people went off, and he must be granted off. this is a this goes back to the physical year 09 when we were about 50 short i think it was just as an example there in the month of july we spent 307 000 on overtime 944 hours were worked but compensation time were taken in place of the money and that earned those folks 1,416 hours to be taken later on, possibly when there's no other time or no other way for them to take off. These charts that I'm about to go through, and I'm just going to flip through them pretty quickly here, just to show you that there is no predictability in overtime usage. It's all over the chart. about the only thing that we can tell you about it is that every year, January, February, March, in the cold months, we have less than the other months. But even some of them are pretty high. So 07, 08, 09, again, this is when we were so short of staff. 10, we notice in this one, January, February, March, this is last year's physical year budget. Almost no overtime there. That is when we browned out some units, if you recall, around Christmas time of last year. And then fiscal year 11, kind of where we're at now. The first part of this year, up until about two weeks ago, we were about 45 people short. We got those 25 out on the line. We're only 20 short now, and we're looking at the rest of the year. One of the other things that we can really predict is that overtime is used on weekends. That's Monday. That's the two bars out to the right are the weekend, Friday, Saturday, Sunday. I think we've already covered this slide in your presentation. It was a breakdown of how comp time was accumulated. Actually, it's way up in the slide show. Before the collective bargaining agreement came to be, vacation time was awarded either 14 hours if you had 10 years or less, 18 hours if you had 10 years or more on the job. With the collecting and bargaining agreement, we now have a three-tiered system. You have less than eight years on the job. You collect 14 hours a month. 9 to 15 you would collect 18 hours a month and over 15 you would collect 22 hours a month and let's let me flip back because there was some other good and how that affects us is that in the The extra time earned because of the collective bargaining agreement, granted in that vacation time, equals about 345 shifts per year. Those are 24-hour shifts. That's equivalent to taking three more firefighters away from us for staffing. And then also in the collective bargaining agreement, there were four 12-hour holidays added per employee. This resulted in an extra 1,090 shifts per year. Again, 24-hour shifts, no added manpower. And that is also the equivalent of taking nine more firefighters away from us. Between those two provisions, it's pretty much 12 firefighters taken away every day from the staffing component. Program cutbacks due to the lack of overtime. We've not had a paramedic class in over two years now. And if we don't have one soon, we're probably looking at another year and a half to two years before we can get some trained and out on the street. In-services have been cut from four per year to two per year, and we have to maintain 60 hours required in two years or every two years to maintain our license. I've had no rescue tech classes, no officer classes for two years. Excuse me, Chief. I'm sorry. Council Member Ellinger has a motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to make a motion that we extend your time another ten minutes. Is that – Plenty. Or you can cut me off right now. No, we don't want to do that. And Council Member Myers seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you. Thank you. Again, there's been no officer classes for two years to continue training our officers, and outside training has all been eliminated. Again, this is a review of our budgets for the last five years. And the summary, keeping us fully staffed is key. We don't incur nearly as much overtime that way. Some of the collective bargaining things that have affected our ability to staff and to minimize overtime or our holiday and vacation have increased. There's no increase in personnel. By contract, we are required to let more people off. And the use of comp time virtually unlimited is some of the things that have affected that. I believe that may be it. Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate it, and we have several questions. So first is Council Member Stenwick. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief Gibbons, thank you for stepping in today and giving us this presentation. I know it was short notice, but we appreciate you doing that and doing it so thoroughly. Just a couple things, observation. Obviously, this council can appreciate that full staffing is key to any division, to cut down on overtime. In 2009, when overtime peaked, this council took awareness of it, and it peaked at $3.2 million. At that time, it was reported you had 35 vacancies. As of before last Friday, you had 45 vacancies, but only used $1.1 million last year. With more vacancies, we used one-third of the overtime money. So I'm trying to get back to the point of the deal with full staffing. Is that really going to solve our overtime? Is that really, in the end of the day, going to solve our overtime? That's the first common observation that I like to make. Second being is, and I know I addressed this with you back in the room before the meeting, and to be fair, is what is our true cost to overtime per collective bargaining? What's the dollar amount each year? I know you may not have it today. I don't have it today. We can certainly work on getting that for you. As far as staffing and manning, we will work on getting that to you. I would suspect it's in the $1.5 to $2.0 range. I'm sorry, $1.5 million? Yeah. Well, but if that's the case, then last year we only spent $1.1 million. And if you'll remember, we had some blackouts. We closed some stations to save some money in the holiday periods. So, again, help me understand. If we're contractually obligated to spend, give them a round, I don't want to hold you to the range, $1.5 to $2 million, how do we get away with only spending $1.1 million if it's contractually obligated that we have to give them overtime? I don't know. You don't have to get that answer today. But, you know, it's easy to blame it on collective bargaining or a piece of it. But I really want to know what piece of that pie really is contributing to collective bargaining. because when you budget each year, we know that, hey, a million of that we've got to put in our budget because we've got to fulfill our contract. I mean, that's something we've all agreed to do is fulfill our collective bargaining contracts. And then anything on top of that, you know, where is that manageable at? Because what you're presenting to us is that we don't have any control over the collective bargaining because we have to provide it. Right. So what do we have control over is what I'm getting to. Okay. And speaking of vacancies, is there a plan to – I know we put in this budget to start another class in January. We actually just graduated class last Friday. Where is that? Do we know where that January class is? We haven't started them yet, obviously. When is our plan now to start it? My understanding, and that's really not, I don't usually take care of HR issues, but my understanding is that the class has been selected. They are standing by just waiting for the go-ahead to move ahead in that process. They've been, the background's been done. I believe the sites have been done. No, they have not. No, sites and physicals have not been done. So those are the. . . But we're just waiting on a green light from the commissioner level or the mayor to continue another class to stop that gap of 25 individuals. Yes, sir. Okay. And then last but not least, and this may be for our commissioner of finance or commissioner of public safety, what are we going to do the remainder of the year? I didn't see a budget item or a budget number in there. How much more money does this council either need to ask the fire department to find or do we need to find within our budget to make sure we get through the rest of the year with appropriate staffing at fire stations? Do we have a number yet? Because when I asked that question two weeks ago, which precipitated this presentation today, it was $420,000 based on what we've already used. But is that really a good number? Are we going to be way over that, way short? Our busy months are coming. Right. We've presented some preliminary numbers to finance to work on cutting down the overtime and other operational costs. So we're still looking at those numbers to come up with something fine. But we don't have that number yet. And once you get the number, where will this council be asked to find that money? Or where will the administration recommend cutting or finding the additional money? Well, that's what we're looking to cut is to bring it to. Well, I don't have the number right now. Okay, and you'll also bring us where we're going to find whatever number you come up with. Okay. And then last but not least, I have 23 seconds, but you mentioned cuts in programming. I didn't see up there some of the additional program we've put online in the last five years that actually took men offline. For instance, the rescue squad took 12 men off per shift that we didn't increase the authorized strength for or hire more men. So why aren't those programs being looked at? I know we added officers in community service that took officers off the front line. So how come those programs haven't been touched, but yet our education, our classes for our officers have been cut back? I believe that all those are being looked at in the proposed changes that the commissioner mentioned. I'm not sure where you wanted to go with that. They are being looked at as we bring a proposal to you. And I'm not saying they're not worthy programs, but at the end of the day, our frontline guys are our most important because they do a great job and we need to keep them online. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So are you saying that the expense in 2009, overtime expense, was almost twice what it was in 2010, and then the expense in FY11 is about $200,000, give or take, less than FY2010, and yet you have fewer people working? I'm not following the question. Okay, it says overtime budget. Yes, ma'am. Page 57 in our packet. The overtime expense has decreased, but the workforce has not decreased. And which one now? I've got the page down. Yeah, page 57. Okay. And Council Member Stennett asked the same question. How did... Are we comparing 07 or 09? Well, if you look at expense for 09... 09, we were about 50 people short. Plus, I mean, if you really wanted to count them, the other 12 folks that we have to let off every day for bargaining, which would kind of even push it up towards 62. So where did the people in FY 2010 and FY 2011 come from? We hired at the end of 2009, correct? We hired at the end of 09, gets us back up to full staffing, reduces our overtime. We were able to fill all those positions. And you said something about the brownouts. I mean, my understanding was that. Last Christmas, well, Christmas of 2009, yeah. We browned out Station 4, if you remember, Station 11. A couple of other ones, a couple in there. But that certainly didn't seem to have a significant impact on. I don't have the number here in front of me, but it's $4,000 or $5,000 a day savings. I mean, we're talking about over a million, over $3,000,000, $4,000 or $5,000,000 for four or five days. This doesn't seem to be a frugal way to go. But I'm just confused by these numbers, but somebody else will probably ask questions that will help me understand better. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Moving to the budget and how those numbers are arrived at, I did some quick math with my handy iPhone. And 2007 through 2010, you averaged $2,360,000 a year. which was 2.88X the budget for 2011. I cannot conceive that all that can be laid at the feet of staffing. It just, the numbers don't make any sense to me at all. How did you arrive when you've had a budget that is that large to all of a sudden drop $1,200,000 from 2010 to 2011? I mean, what was the rationale behind doing that? What was happening as far as staffing was concerned that would cause you to drop down to $820,000? My understanding is that we had to present a balanced budget to the Council and the Administration to balance it. That's exactly what I thought. So it was a made-up number. It had nothing to do with what your staffing situation was. That's my understanding. Well, that's a shame because now we've got to deal with it, and that's a shame. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief, thank you for coming in this evening, this afternoon. And, again, it's been said earlier, I realize that you didn't create this PowerPoint, and you were asked at the last minute to come and present it. So I know you're not necessarily ready to answer all the questions we might have. But if you'll go back to the example you gave with Firefighter Jones working a 12-hour shift. Yes, sir. I guess if you could kind of give the audience listening a little bit of history in terms of collective bargaining and why this practice, was this practice in place before collective bargaining? No, sir. Before collective bargaining, if Firefighter Jones had worked that 12 hours, he would have been paid the $564 and we would have been done with it. actually probably wouldn't have been paid that much. Collective bargaining has been very good to our firefighters. It has really increased their compensation to more national levels, and it's a good thing. But, again, if he had worked just that straight 12 hours, token it as overtime, then he would have collected the 564, and that would have been all. It wouldn't have escalated upon up the way it does that way. So I hope that answers it. Okay. I guess I agree as part of what you said about collective bargaining and bringing up wages, and that's a good thing. But I guess what I'm trying to understand and what I'd like you to help all of us understand watching at home is because none of us were in those negotiations. And so we don't understand, at least I don't. I'll speak for myself. I don't understand why this needed to happen in collective bargaining. If we needed to get wages up, I understand that. But I don't understand why we would put a multiplier in there that would allow us to pay three and a half, almost three and a half times what this firefighter would have received because he worked out overtime. So if you could help us all understand why this was necessary. I can't speak to that. I wasn't on the bargaining team. I'm not sure why they would have thought that was a good plan. Okay. And I guess, like I said, you didn't put the PowerPoint together, so you weren't ready to answer those questions. So maybe you could find out. Yes, sir. I don't know if there's minutes from those meetings or any kind of synopsis that kind of would let people. I don't know. I'll see if I can find out. I'll just go back and look and see why things were done. And I guess I want to ask you a question. I know it's not really fair to ask you the question, but the question I think people would ask is, is this fair? Is what part fair? This example. The fact that instead of paying the person $564 for working the overtime that they worked, which seems fair, Is it fair that we put into place a system that now requires a taxpayer to pay three and a third times as much as it really cost that person to work that overtime? Councilman, I think that's a philosophical question that clearly has roots going back six or seven years to two previous ago administrations. and what was fair and negotiated at that time was perceived fair and negotiated. So for whatever reason, of which right now we can't explain the history, I think that's a question that is really too philosophical for Chief Gribben to really be able to address at this point. Okay, let me follow up then. I do understand there was a couple of administrations ago, and I do understand that he didn't put the PowerPoint presentation together, When you say it's philosophical and you say that it's not fair, it was negotiated and agreed to as fair back then, my question is not philosophical. The question is, is it fair to the taxpayer that they would pay three times more to get an hour of overtime worked than what it costs to work the hour of overtime? That's not philosophical. That's an economic question. Okay, you're right. That is a current economic question. My answer would be that it may not be fair, but it's what we are agreed upon to do under the current collective bargaining agreement, which expires in about a month. Is that right? The end of the month. So, I mean, it's... Well, I'm glad that you came up and took this question because now you're in the role of the next wave of collective bargaining. So I guess I'll ask you the question. Do you think this is fair, and do you intend to have this type of clause in the next collective bargaining when it's done? I'm not really sure whether I'm in a position to be able to start talking about the negotiations that have not even begun yet. And I don't think this is the appropriate venue. My response to that would be that as you go into those negotiations, I would like to say that I don't think it's fair. I don't think it makes sense. I don't think it makes economic sense. And I hope that that's the position you'll take as you go into the next negotiations. Yes, sir. Thank you. Is my time up? Your time is up. Thank you. You can get on for a second. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a few questions. If somebody takes off comp time, are we having to pay somebody overtime to fill for somebody who's taking off comp time? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And can you tell us how many majors, battalion chiefs, and assistant chiefs we have? Four assistants, 18 majors and battalions, is that correct? I think it's 18 majors and battalion. And then do you know, and you can just give me an approximate number, how many? I think it's 32. 32? 33. 33 majors and? Majors and battalions. Together combined? Correct. Okay. Sorry, I'm trying to take notes. And then can you tell me how many officers we have currently working in either like the garage or building maintenance who are trained paramedics? I don't have that number right offhand. I can't really. I was trying to run through my head and who they all are. So maybe a better question would be we have trained paramedics who are working doing building maintenance. Yeah, most of those fire guys that have done that, they have put in their four or five years on the buggy and have moved on to other ventures in the fire department. And then when training occurs, does that occur on duty or is that over time? For the paramedics? For all training. Some training, we do our, some of our fire training is done, or most of all of our fire training is done on duty where we can bring a whole company down at a time to the fire training center. The paramedic training is done a little differently in that we form a class of 20, 25 candidates to become paramedics. They come down, and it's kind of a combination. Some days they are on duty. Some days they're off-duty and we're paying them overnight and come down. One of the things about those folks is usually they are on the lower end of the pay scale, so they're a little bit cheaper to train than the other guys. When you say form class, is that because now we don't require our new recruits to have the dual paramedic firefighter training? and is that a standard that's national or is that something that was instituted under this chief? It's kind of all over the board. You know, we forever, in 1977 when we instituted our paramedic class, it was all voluntary. If you wanted to go and get that training, you did. Two years, I think it was 2009, the budget that was so bad there when we were so short, We had instituted that they would be trained as paramedics before they left preentry. So that extended their time in training by another 22 weeks or so. So they were out there almost a whole year, 44 weeks out there. And it ran our overtime budget up, and we didn't get them on the street as fast, so we had those vacancies. Although we had bodies hired for vacancies, they weren't helping us on the street because they were in training. So to get them out of training faster, we dropped the requiring them to be paramedics before they come out of training. And we're going to go back to the volunteer system of going to paramedic class. When we went through the budget, I believe it was 2009, when we discussed removing the paramedic training from the firefighter training so we could get them out on the street quicker, we were told at that time that this would help the overtime situation, and I'm not quite sure that today we could agree that that has indeed helped. But could you comment also on just explain to us about how you go through the list and how it affects, like, with the collective bargaining requirements? I know that for some of us that's very confusing where you say you have to let so many off because of collective bargaining, but you have to have minimum staffing. Is there anything that's part of the contract that if we do not have minimum staffing that they cannot take off? because it creates this cycle of... No, ma'am. They get to take off. Okay. I may have some follow-up. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm a small business operator, and if our company, we're in a recession right now, we're budgeting tight. We planned to take some money out of our account, this is hypothetical, to pay the difference between our operating expenses and what our income is for the year. And then some of our employees went out and spent a lot of extra money that wasn't budgeted so that then we would have to borrow even more money to pay our overhead. That would jeopardize the jobs of the employees in that business because you can't do that forever. In the case of the fire department, you know, we already have budgeted for this year to take $5 million out of a rainy day fund. And so I just found it appalling that now we're going to run maybe $400,000 more overtime than budgeted that we're going to have to come up with. So, you know, where are we going to get that money? You're forcing the government to either raise taxes to lay off people or to take more of what little money we have less than the rainy day fund out to pay the bill. And I'm just very, very upset with that because I think that's very bad management by the fire department. Would you like to address that comment? We're just working with the collective bargaining agreement that we received. I mean, we can't tell somebody they can't take off. Right. Okay, well. I'm sure in your business you could. Right. Okay, well, there's another point there in that I made a, I brought a resolution to council a couple of years ago that the council would approve the negotiated collective bargaining agreements. And those agreements are negotiated between the union and the mayor's office. The union gets to take the document back to their rank and file and they vote on it and they approve it. but the council has not been able to do that. And so we represent the taxpayers, and it really concerns me that we can enter into a collective agreement and it's not approved by the council. And this is a good example because these agreements run for three years. They're multimillion-dollar commitments in collective bargaining, particularly for public safety. And in many cases, the commitment is made by one mayor it may go two years into the new mayor's term if there's a new mayor coming in. So there's some really deficiencies here, and I think this is showcasing one of those deficiencies that we need to have more input in reviewing it. And a lot of the council members are questioning this because we were not advised of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement. We were left in the dark on that. All right. The other question, could you provide what the total compensation by rank for the typical firefighters that we have, and that would include not only the salary, but, you know, health care, pension, any other benefits they get, so that we could maybe bring that back to us with the other information that's been requested, so we could look at, you know, what the actual cost per each firefighter is by rank. I think it's listed on the third slide of the PowerPoint. Salary and benefits for a recruit firefighter, $43,000 a year. Salary and benefits for a 10-year firefighter, $80,000. I don't have the other ranks there listed, but we can certainly get those for you. Does that include health care benefits, pension fund, things like that? I think just to look at the total cost, what we're investing in that. Let's see, I had one other question here. Yeah, my other question, do you feel that the management of the fire department has been, you know, doing a good job of managing the overtime costs and the day-to-day operation of the fire department? Do you feel really confident you've been doing a great job? And I ask that because, you know, the police department, they have the same issues with overtime. They have collective bargaining agreement, and they've been able to stay within their budget. I'm not trying to leverage fire. I think the big difference in between the fire and the police is if we have one guy on a unit that takes off, it's left with two guys, obviously they can't operate with two guys, so we hire one guy back so that that unit stays functioning. If the police have, say, 12 guys out in a beat area and they have one guy left off, they probably still operate with the 11 guys in the bead area. And I don't know that for sure. I'm just speculating on that. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I would like to say I appreciate your coming in. And I, you know, apologize that you caught all the slings today from the council. But we appreciate your attitude and your response. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to echo that and just say thank you for stepping up to the plate because this obviously isn't your presentation, and you didn't have time to really work through it. So thank you. I don't have any questions. I've got a couple of comments. And I think what's important is things that seem very logical and very fair in one season of collective bargaining during a couple-month period have an interesting way of becoming very illogical and very unfair-looking three years later, especially when there's a dramatic turn in the economy. There are circumstances you can't foresee three years prior. I think that what's really critical is that we need, and folks in this room and folks watching, need to take note of what's happening in Wisconsin and Ohio and these other states. and what is happening is that you have a real interesting and problematic situation being created when you have public sector unions negotiating collective bargaining. And what I mean by that is that you have two sides that are bargaining, and if they can't pay the bill or they can't meet it, it's actually a third side that meets the obligation, the taxpayer. So we can mess up a collective bargaining really, really bad, and ultimately it's the taxpayer that has to foot the bill for it. And that's why folks are very frustrated around this country. And I think it's absolutely incumbent that we as a council and we as administration and fire, police, other public safety, understand where we are and that it's not about just getting mine and doing things in a vacuum. And as a council member who has firmly supported public safety by every vote that I've ever cast and firmly supported fire by every vote that I've ever cast. I want to charge the administration. I want to charge leadership, management, the unions to understand this going into collective bargaining. There are a lot of people watching. There are a lot of people watching. And it's one of those things where what comes out of this is going to be absolutely critical. I support Council Member Lane in the fact that it does seem very unfair that the one group who's going to have to foot the bill for any mistakes made in collective bargaining or any promises made in collective bargaining is a taxpayer, and they're not represented at the table nor by us. And I think that has to change dramatically going into this season of collective bargaining. Again, I thank you for coming and stepping up to the plate and helping deal with this problem. Thank you, sir. We have a round of second questions by Councilmembers who have already spoken, but first we'll hear from Councilmember Blues. Did you want to speak? Yes, Mr. Vice Mayor. I just have a question about how the hours a firefighter works per year are calculated. According to the number on page 58, it says firefighters work 2,912 hours a year, which at least as figured on the basis of an eight-hour day comes to 361 and a half days a year. Basically what we do is take 365 and divide it by three because we have three 24-hour shifts, and that's 120-some-odd days a year times the 24 hours. So, I mean, when I'm asking this, is that accurate, that there are actually 361 days and a half out of 365 that a firefighter works? Any one particular firefighter, it would be scheduled for like 120 odd days a year, 121 point something. They work 24 hours. They're off 48. So every third day they would be working 24 hours. I see. So to fill one seat on the truck, say the driver's seat on one truck, you have to have three firefighters, one for each day. All right. So the 24 hours, though, it's not, that's 24 hours in the firehouse? Correct. They're there from 7 a.m. Saturday morning. They get off 7 a.m. Sunday morning. I see. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chief. I have just two questions, and they're both operational, I guess, in context. Because speaking, you may have already talked to it, speak to the burden that this places on management in regards to filling the slots as far as managing the overtime to make sure that we have the, it sounds like a daunting task day in and day out. It is a constant, I don't even know exactly how to describe it. But every morning the shift commanders and the majors get together and start seeing who they have off for the next day, three days out, which would be their next work day, how many overtimes or how many slips, vacant spots they have, if they have any, how they're going to go about failing them, if they need to hire back overtime to keep trucks manned. We have a minimum number of folks it takes to man those trucks. If we drop below it, we either have to hire back some overtime to keep that truck on the road and servicing the citizens, or basically we have to take the truck out of service and create a hole someplace in our coverage. You know, they spend, I'd be guessing, but it's probably six, seven hours a day working on their roll calls, keeping them up. Because throughout the 24-hour day, they're also changing. You know, somebody needs to take off for a few hours to go see their kid play baseball. It's shuffling people in to take that and letting this guy off and constantly moving people around. It's quite a burdensome process. Well, thank you, Chief. And I guess to go from that end of the spectrum to my next question is, at the end of the day, how has it impacted on the street service on behalf of the citizens? If we have firefighters that are returning to service when they're not scheduled to work, they're covering overtime, there's going to be some, I would imagine, some fatigue, some... We have some policies in place to deal with that. We don't typically allow somebody that has just worked a 24-hour shift to continue working into the next 24. They have to have off at least a 12-hour period before they're eligible to work overtime. Same thing before they're coming to work. They're not eligible to work the previous 12 hours before their start time, so that there's always a 12-hour cushion on either side of their normal workday. Okay. And, again, I focus my questions on the operational aspects. I do share the same concern that my fellow council members share in regards to the economic impact, particularly because we're in some very, very trying times. And I guess to follow on that last question, so we're meeting the service demands. At the end of the day, I think that's also all of our greatest concern is that we are meeting the service demands. Yes, sir. I haven't noticed any falling off of service. We're still, right now, we're still meeting the demand. Well, Chief, I thank you for answering these questions. The final comment that I would have in being new to Council is just on the surface it appears there are inefficiencies that exist. when we have management that's burdened with hours and hours of daytime trying to fill overtime, those are hours, those are valuable man hours perhaps that could be spent improving the fire and emergency services in Fayette County. So I do value what you guys bring to the table on behalf of the citizens, but there has to be a more efficient way, and I look forward to work with the council, hopefully, to examine that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. A couple of questions. You said that we have sworn officers who work as mechanics and do building maintenance. Yes, ma'am. And your statement was they've been on the truck for five or six years and they just wanted – can anybody just come up and say, I'm tired of being on an ambulance or being on a truck, so I want to do building maintenance and are paid sworn officer rates? That answer that you're referring to was to did we have paramedics working over there, and that's where the five-year thing came in. Typically what we have done in the past is nationally the burnout rate for paramedics, five to seven years, they need to be off seeing something else because they see so much stuff when they're on the trucks. It's a tremendous amount of work. You can only imagine what they see. I absolutely appreciate that. So after the paramedic has been there four or five years, he may decide he wants to go into building maintenance or he wants to go into hazmat or under the rescue or just go into a ladder company. It's just a reassignment of duties so that he's seen something else for a while. Well, and I absolutely appreciate that. And I also want to thank you for being here. I know you didn't prepare this, but it seems to me that, and I think moving people around to do different jobs, especially when they're stressful jobs like EMS and firefighters, and I am extremely grateful and supportive for their service, to put them into building maintenance or as mechanics seems like an extreme. The mechanic part of it gives us 24-hour coverage on a skilled mechanic. Most of them become emergency vehicle technicians. It's a certification that they get. Pretty much if we can't roll our trucks, we're dead in the water, so we have to have that support throughout the day to keep those trucks going. Are some of them placed like at fleet services? No, ma'am. We maintain our own garage down at Station 1. I think to answer, to maybe help illuminate a bit, there are only, I think, four sworn firefighters that are working any building maintenance and only four that are involved, one per shift, on the mechanic side of things. So it's not huge numbers, but just to clarify. One other thing, the ones that are working in building maintenance throughout the day, when most other folks are getting off, like at 4 or 5 o'clock, they then become our mobile air technician who takes out the air truck, or if we have a rescue, they take out maybe a boat to take it to the river, or just any number of vehicles that we don't staff all the time. These are our extra people to staff those whenever the call is needed. Okay. The other question, and I just would need to learn more about that, and you talked about the programs and education components. How many fire personnel, sworn personnel and EMS are doing those programs and what are they? I'm not sure which programs we're talking about. The community services ones? Community services. I think there's some with schools. We don't have anybody in school. So we don't have a school resource officer like the police do. All of our guys, as one of my slideshow, 499 or 98% of our guys are out on trucks answering calls every day. Okay. So what community, I mean, Council Member Stenet referred to that. What community activities or? Right now we're doing, I know the last night we started our 18th or 19th Citizens Fire Academy, where we bring citizens in. Many of you all have participated in that, come out and just show different aspects of what the fire department does for the citizens and those type of things. We have, I think there's four people in arson or in investigations. They do all the fire investigations throughout the county, which are required by KRS. They also do all our internal affair investigations. And that's still just four guys there doing that. So we have a very small amount of our total force that's involved in anything other than delivering service to the citizens. Okay. And lieutenants, majors, captains, battalion chiefs, et cetera. Yes, ma'am. They're there for the 24-hour shift. Are they on the trucks? Do they provide direct service? Yes. So they're fighting fires. They're fighting fires. They're doing CPR. They're bandaging wounds, delivering babies, all kinds of things. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you again, Chief, for coming in today. Is the decision of who services our fire trucks and apparatus a matter of collective bargaining? I don't think so, no. Okay. Could you go through that slide one more time with the example of Firefighter Jones? And then I have a question for the commission. Okay. If I could put that on the screen, please. Okay. Firefighter Jones works a 12-hour shift on this would be considered extra duty or overtime. He elected to receive comp time as allowed by that article of the collective bargaining agreement, and that results in him being awarded 18 hours of comp time. On a day when there are no leave slots available, Jones wants to take off, so he has to use that 18 hours. To maintain the level of service to the citizens, we have Firefighter Smith work that 18 hours in place of Jones. Smith also elects to receive his compensation in comp time, and he is accredited with 27 hours of comp time, time and a half of the 18 hours. now firefighter Smith wants to take off a day again when all the leave slots are filled he uses his comp time and Brown works and this is more hypothetical here because nobody can work 40 hours in the day Smith wants to take off firefighter Brown works back for Smith and Brown takes comp time instead of pay and received 40.5 which is one and a half times of the previous the 27. So the original 12 hours, which would have cost $564, has now blown to $1,903.50. Okay. Thank you, Chief. Commissioner, could you come up for a second? Yes. The final comment I was going to make earlier was that when you look at what's happening in Wisconsin, and people don't understand the debate, and they talk about taking away people's collective bargaining or taking away rights from employees, this is really the problem. There's a difference between collective bargaining for salary, and I think everybody around this horseshoe and everybody at home would say we need to pay all our public safety personnel a fair wage, a right wage for the work they do and for the risk that they're under. But when you go to collective bargaining for benefits, that's where this comes into play. So I would ask that as you go into collective bargaining this year, I know it's going to be next to impossible to get this example to go away in the next session of collective bargaining, but really I think this is what has to be addressed, is pay everybody a fair wage, compensate them adequately for what they do, and do that well, because they do a great job. But what has to happen is we've got to change this collective bargaining for benefits, because this is going to bankrupt us, and there's no way back from that if it stays this way. We are prepared to discuss everything in the collective bargaining agreement. On the table, fresh and anew, we're hiring a consultant, a professional negotiator to come in on our side. And that's happened in the past. I mean, I understand that's how it's done. I don't believe in the past there was a professional negotiator. It happened the first year. They had someone, Milton brought somebody in. Right. The second time, it did not happen. We were questioned this time because, you know, the economy, as bad as it is, and I think everybody knows what Jay and you just said, even the fire and police, we're going to try to make this work, and I just want you to know we hired a consultant, and I think we're negotiating with him now, and these are the kind of everything that's on the table, folks. It's just not this issue. There's all kinds of other things on the table, and they know we've got to work things out. So it's going to be an ongoing process. Okay. And we're not saying, you know, swing the pendulum back the other way so that it's not right either. But we've got to get things where they're sustainable. Yes. And I guess Richard, or Commissioner, or Zayo Maloney, I want to be respectful. Can you at least look at what Councilman Lane talked about in terms of the Council having some say in the beginning so that we're not just asked to rubber stamp what was agreed upon in the end, that we have no say in, but that because we are the folks that are going to represent the citizens in this process, that we have some kind of input? I just talked to the Attorney. From what we've been told, there are other cities that do that, and that's something that I'll let her answer that. Thank you. Councilman, in the agreement that we're negotiating with the outside consultant, it would provide for updates to you all on a regular basis. And those would be in pursuant to the Open Meetings Act, those would be closed session meetings. And could I just ask, I know my time is up, when you say updates, but is there ability for us to put input in so that it goes back into instead of us just hearing what is happening? I think we could certainly talk about the phrasing of that. I think it would be important. You have to designate him with some ability when he goes in to do the bargaining. And I think that would be what we'd have to discuss. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stummet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Trying to reel us back in a little bit. Let's get back to overtime, talking about what our presentation is about. I appreciate the dialogue on collective bargaining, But I think I want to make sure we get some three or four things answered before we solve this issue once and for all. And, again, you've answered some tough questions. Chief, thank you. I appreciate it. One, can we make sure we get the cost of collective bargaining over time? Can we get a dollar amount to that and get back to council with what that cost truly is on a yearly basis based on a contract, realizing that it will change, obviously, as contracts change, but we need to put a dollar amount to that? But that's the simplest and easiest way to start budgeting for overtime, make sure that cost is covered. The second is, have you all developed a plan on what it would take to get the full staffing and keep that level maintained? Have we discussed that? I don't know that we have developed. I mean, our plan is to hire each spring, or not spring, but winter. January, February, March is our best time. It's our lowest usage of overtime. It's the best time for us to bring our new firefighters on. About the time that they get out of training, spring break hits, then right after that you have the summer vacation period that comes in there. That full staffing is an elusive thing that we would never get to. As soon as we hire 20, like we're 20 down right now, as soon as we hire these 20, When we get them in training, we'll have somebody retire or become disabled or whatever, and we'll start down those steps again to non-full step. Well, there has to be a way, though, to plan to even do overhires if we had to, to compensate for some of those contingencies. We have in the past, I think, and I can't remember the years. Well, the last time was in 2008. We had 557 active firefighters and only 545. Correct. Like I said, in the past we have anticipated or been allowed to anticipate how many people that may be leaving in January over hire for those beforehand. And last but not least, you mentioned authorized strength. Is there a plan out there on what this city our size would need to service adequately the fire protection for this city and what our authorized strength really should be? Have we analyzed that before? We've looked at several different things. You know, the I chiefs or the police chiefs have a X number of police officers per thousand firefighters. We don't have anything comparable to that. We do have NFPA 1710, which talks about the distribution of professional firefighters to meet that. And the standard that they talk about in there is a response time of eight minutes or less for 90% of your calls to distribute your forces in that manner. It also goes on to describe what an engine company is, what an ambulance is, that type of thing. So it's more of a geographic standard than it is a per capita standard. Well, I understand it, but I think we need to develop some type of plan so that we can keep the overtime curbed, keep it remaining as low as possible. And if we need to increase authorized strength, what does that number look like? So if we can look at that as well and get back to this council with some definitive plan on, you know, how to get the full staffing, what our true authorized strength should be, and then the collective bargaining truly cost. And the last but not least is obviously the budget issue, you know, how we're going to find the money to get through the rest of this year. before we start planning for next year. And keep in mind, today is not about the performance of your department. I don't think there's a councilman up here that would say the performance is anything but excellent. So, you know, today is about budget. I mean, today is about dollars. We ask every other department to make sure they come in at budget and not go over. So, I mean, that's why it's no different for fire. We're just asking for the same. But in fairness to you, in fairness, and to say it publicly, in 2009 you're at $3.2 million or at $3.3. And last year you came in at 1.1. So you have reduced your overtime. So I appreciate that. I know serving on the link last year we made a conservative effort to make sure you had full staffing two years ago. Obviously we had retirements that put us behind that. But you have reduced your overtime from when this first issue came up, and you should be noticed for that. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Vice Mayor, I don't know if the other two council members have had a chance to speak yet that just came up. I would, I'll be happy to let them go ahead of me if they have not spoken. Okay. I still have questions, but out of fairness. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have one question about could a station operate with less staff? Would collective bargaining allow it? I know many times in order to cut down on overtime, if someone needs a day off or wants to take a day off, normally that station has three folks if there's one unit, right? Correct. Could that unit go out with two rather than? There is a big safety concern with just running two people out on a fire company. Also, you will not be able to perform all the functions that you really need to. As I mentioned earlier, the National Fire Protection Association standard 1710 calls for actually four people minimum on an engine company. just to perform the duties. You need an officer to lead the team, a driver to actually get you there safely and to pump the truck, and then typically you would need two members to pull a hose off the truck and attack the fire. Also, another standard is the two in, two out rule by OSHA, I think it's OSHA, where you have to have, if you're sending two firefighters into a fire, you have to have two outside for a rescue team. So having two as a responding company would be a good one. Well, I know my experience has been, I personally haven't had a fire, thank goodness, but my neighbors have. And there were like four trucks there, one ambulance, a three-bedroom house. Yes, ma'am. So I guess I was just thinking, could we possibly? Right. There's a number of different functions that have to be performed to minimize the damage to that three-bedroom house. We've got some people that are going in searching to make sure everybody's out. Many times we will get told that everybody's out when they're not really everybody's out. The house is clear, so it's up to us to make sure the house is clear. Have a team pulling the hose, putting water on the fire to extinguish it. And also we have a crew that is charged with ventilation, salvage and overhaul, get the smoke out of there as fast as they can so that the crew advancing on the fire can see and have an environment that they can survive in. Also the crew that's doing the ventilation typically will try to do salvage, furniture, that kind of stuff of the people's belongings so that we can minimize damage there. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chief, thank you for stepping into the lion's den today. Thank you. I appreciate you being here. It is a difficult issue because of the tough economic times we have and because of the fact that the money just isn't there. So as I understand that from what you've told us today, a lot of this overtime is sort of built into the system. Is that fair? Yes, sir. When's the first time that the senior staff of the fire department became aware that we're going to go over budget? This year? Probably just before the elections. And yet here we are in March. Have you all brought this to council prior to now? No, sir. I don't think so. And why is that? I can't answer that. Are you a member of the senior staff? Yes, sir. And does it, I mean, do you all make decisions as a group, or is it just only the chief that makes decisions? You know, we make recommendations, and I think the decision is left to the chief, the public safety commissioner. I think the CAO would like to have an answer to that. I just want to get clarification here, guys. on this page 72 that you all have been looking at, we may have an issue. This is not right. We would like to come back later to go over this because it's comp time, guys. You don't get paid for comp time. And it's every one of these is showing comp time. And we just don't want to send any false messages, especially to the guys out there working now. I think we need to get this report right on this page on 72. So I ask that we come back later on 72 and talk to you all about the confidence, because right now we don't want this to get blown up, because this is really wrong. Okay. You don't get paid for confidence. So you'll come back with more information on that. And then Council Member Martin still has about 3 minutes and 20 seconds, I think. We need to go to the referees to find out the clock, but I'll take whatever the Vice Mayor is willing to give me. Chief, can you help me understand the practice of sending more than one team to either an EMS call or to a fire call? Do we have a procedure where it's the first available or something like that? Yes, sir. And I think I explained the fire call there just a second ago. There are a number of calls. I think we have 10 on our list where we automatically send a first responder, the closest unit to that, just because of the severity of it. A heart attack would be one, severe car wreck, seizures, difficulty breathing. Most anything that would be life-threatening would get a first responder, which is the closest available unit, whatever it happens to be, whether it's an engine, ladder, that can get there on the scene. Again, trying to meet that NFPA standard of responding to 90% of our calls in eight minutes or less. And what percent of calls end up having two? So this ends up with two teams on the site, is that correct? Well, it ends up with having a first responder team, typically an engine, and an ambulance when they can get there. We only have nine ambulances to cover all of Fayette County. And, you know, last year we did 33,000 runs, those nine teams did, so they worked pretty hard. So do you know what percentage of calls, again, have multiple teams? I don't write offhand, but I'm sure we can dig that out for you. On a number of occasions I've been present where the two teams come in and one incident in particular, someone was having a cardiac or potential cardiac arrest, and there were two teams there, and one person was just sort of administering the, working with the citizen, and then you have five other, two other people from their team, and then three other people from, I guess, a ladder truck or something. Okay. Is that typical? Yeah, that would be typical. And in the thing you're talking about, a cardiac arrest, there are many tasks that have to be accomplished in a short amount of time, such as establishing an airway, electrical therapy, starting IVs, getting the person packaged and ready to move, getting the equipment in to move them. So there's a number of tasks that have to be accomplished. And there's a time frame on it because time is tissue, is what we're talking about in the medical community. and either using brain tissue, heart tissue. I guess, can you provide us at a later date, maybe to send to my council office, information about how this compares to what other cities do? Sure. Because I'd be interested in that, particularly Louisville. Louisville is not really a good comparison for us because Louisville Metro EMS is a third service entity. They run about 50 units, I think, out on their streets and don't even cover their whole county. They have contracts with some private services to cover parts of their county. So we could supplement with private services or something? I wouldn't recommend that, no. I guess I'll come back. All right. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Honestly, I'm not really sure where to start. I have to say I'm extremely, extremely disappointed that we find out well over halfway into our budget year that we're in this overtime situation. Today's the first time that I think most of us heard that there was this trend prior to, we know now, November, and that we are just now finding out in March that this was an issue and something that possibly senior management could have come to the council with. And I guess maybe my question is, you're part of the senior management of the fire department. Was it recommended that this be presented to this body, that this information be presented to this body, or to the administration, previous administration? It was presented to the previous administration. Can you tell me, do you believe, first of all, what's your current response times on the fire department? For which? Calls. Average, if you could just give an average. I wish I had. We produce a booklet every, well, for the EMAB, we produce a booklet every quarter showing all that. I don't have that number right now. It's probably in the four to five minute range for most calls. Do you believe that there's a need for more staffing to respond or a need of reorganization of personnel? I would say that we need more staffing to respond. We actually need more EC units out on the street. Turning over a little bit to the collective bargaining agreement, I know that it's been many of our experiences in here when we go through even the budgeting process that we get input from them. And I think we saw last year during the brownouts that as a unit they were willing to come to the table to try and negotiate some things during that time. As a member of senior management, I know you can't because you didn't prepare this presentation, but can you comment, have you had meetings with collective bargaining to see during this process if there's any changes that could be made to the agreement? I'm not sure, and this may be a legal question for our law department, but can at any time, if they are willing, which we have seen during the brownouts, that they are willing to negotiate things. At any time, can there be addendums to the collective bargaining agreement? Yeah, there is a labor management meeting that happens, and I'm not on it. I don't know how often it happens. Maybe President Barley could let me in on that. I think it's monthly that there's a collective bargaining agreement or labor management meeting that happens between management and the leaders of the union to work out details, particularly on maybe an article that's not quite clear or needs some further definition. They work it out and come out with a published definition of that article. I guess the question would be, during that time, Is it ever suggested by senior management of the fire department that you understand how you're trending with some of these issues? At any time since, say, 2009, has there been any effort made to discuss possibly making an amendment to the contract to help the city? Because when public safety is over $1.3 million halfway through the year on budget, then that affects all of government. And so at any time when you see this trend going in that direction, was there an attempt made to discuss any potential? I'm not aware of one. Do you attend those meetings? No, ma'am. Okay. Do you know who attends those meetings with? Chief Hendricks, Chief Gillum, Chief Hendricks, and I think Chief Jackson just maybe started within the last month. Could you possibly find out if any attempt was made for us because my time is running out? Yes, ma'am. And then can you also explain to us briefly who with the fire department, I think many of us were also interested in or surprised maybe it might be a better word to learn that your budget's really not based on solid numbers of what you expect for the year, and who is responsible within the fire, the Division of Fire, to come up with a budget that's presented to the administration and turn the council. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Okay. Yes, I've just got a couple of follow-up questions. Just for the general public, could you just state what is the total budget for the fire department on an annual basis? You can give us this year's number for fiscal year 11 or last year. Including personnel, it's in the $54 million range. Okay. And approximately what percentage of the cost is personnel cost? Ninety percent, I think. Okay. Again, that's just trying to remember hearsay type. Okay. All right. And then the other thing I was going to just remind you is that I did ask for this information, and I want to make sure that we do get it. I'd like to have the full human resource cost, and that would include salary, benefits, pension, and health care for each rank of our, you know, department, so we can still get an idea of approximate cost for each category by rank. And then the other thing that I did not ask you earlier, but after you've made this presentation, the first question I guess there is you represent the mayor's office in regard to running the department. You're not a union member. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So what I would like for you to do on behalf of the council and the mayor's office would be to give us some ideas of potential changes that you think that would be very beneficial in a collective bargaining agreement that maybe would help us run more efficiently and be able to manage our costs better. I think that would be real good insight to have that information from you because you've been on the line dealing with these problems. The third question I had was on the comp time, and the question there might have been some misinterpretation, but the way I got your presentation is that if I work 12 hours and overtime and I get one and a half time for overtime, I can either get paid that in money or I can get instead of 12 hours, 18 hours of comp time to make up for it. Now the problem is if I take the comp time and I'm not working, then you've got to bring another firefighter in and pay them overtime to fill my slot if you don't have extra personnel available. Correct. So that's what happens to the multiplier effect, and it goes up. Okay. All right. The other issue that I would be interested in is I would like to know not how many vehicles went out, but how many EMS events we actually had. There was how many auto crashes, how many heart attacks, and all that. But just the event. I don't want to know, you know, that three firefighter vehicles went there, three EMS vehicles. I just want to know how many events we have there. And then the other would be in the year. 33,000. I know that one. So you're saying there were 33,000 accidents? 33,000 EMS events last year. Okay. All right. EMS runs. So you have to understand the terminology. An incident, every incident gets an incident number. Under that umbrella of an incident, you may have those two trucks you had talked about earlier coming to it. They would each have a run number. So we had 33,000 runs to, I think, 30,000 incidents last year. Okay. Okay. Well, I'd like to see those numbers. Okay. You can break it out by types of incidents. We can do that. You have that information. We produce a report for the EMAB with zip, you know, even the zip codes. goes down to where they are in zip codes and census tracts or just however you want it broke down. Okay. Then my last bit of information I'd like to have is how many fire calls by station. These are where we actually had a fire. We responded to a fire on a station-by-station basis so we could get an idea of, you know, where the fires are occurring. And I've never seen a report like that. I think that would be very helpful information. Yes, sir. And let me again say thank you. As I said, I feel badly that you've taken the brunt of all these questions today, You've done a very good job. Thank you. We appreciate your coming down. Thank you, sir. Council Member Martin. Thank you. And to briefly follow up on what Council Member Lane, as you sort of detail these runs, if you could let us know how many of the runs were for the same event. So in case of the multi-run calls about the first responders, if you could let us know how many sort of events there are. That would be helpful. I guess I go back to a question. How much is this going to cost us for the rest of the year? We put together an estimate of like $420,000 for the rest of the year. Plus the $80,000 that we're behind? Correct. So we're looking at about a half a million dollars. Yes, sir. And that's based on our previous seven, eight months of data? I guess it concerns me greatly that you all knew that the budget estimate was inaccurate and that there was sort of a conspiracy of silence not to disclose this to the council or to members of the council. I think we all work for the taxpayers and for the citizens. and to the extent that this was known at the time the budget was submitted, I believe it's the folks in the police department who are sworn should have disclosed that to folks on the council. Commissioner, Mason, I have a question for you, if I might. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. You and I met last Thursday to go through some things, and you and I talked about some other issues. But at the time I asked you to provide, at today's presentation, information relating to the amount of overtime taken by per year of service. Did that information become available? I thought it was in part of this presentation. But you're talking about the actual? You were looking at people in terms of seniority, how much overtime they took, correct? No, that was not in here. You're right. We've not gotten that yet. Yeah, because are you familiar with pension spiking? I've heard the term. Pension spiking is the practice of loading up on overtime in the years leading up to your retirement so that your pension benefits are. But that's not allowed in their pension plan. Okay, and that's why I just want, you know, I'm not saying this is going on here at all because I have no information. It's not allowed in their pension plan. Okay, so overtime does not count towards pension? Overtime does not count towards pension. Okay, well, that's great to know. That's actually a breath of good news today, so I appreciate that. I guess the last thing I want to say is that I agree with some of my colleagues that I think Lexington's collective bargaining process needs more supervision from the taxpayers than it's currently getting. I just find it just outrageous that we have to approve the city accepting a truckload of dirt, but a single individual, in this case the mayor, in fact the last several mayors, has the authority to approve a collective bargaining agreement that lasts three years. It has an impact of 150. What is the cost of a three-year collective bargaining agreement, Chief? I wouldn't. It's a big number. It is. It's a big number. I'm sorry? It's about $150 million, I guess. It's about $50 a year. And so I think that the taxpayers and the citizens just expect us to represent them in this. and the ability for any human being to have that much decision-making without the elected representatives to participate. I think it's a broken system. I support unions, but I also support having more input from the elected folks, from the people who represent the citizens. So, Chief, again, thank you for coming today. I'm sorry you were in the lion's den, as we said, but I do appreciate you coming here today. Thank you. Thank you, Vice President. Thank you, Chief. Just a couple of points. One is, as far as comp time is concerned, when you bank comp time over time, do you not get paid? It's capped, but do you not get paid for that comp time if you separate from? It is capped, and I don't know what the cap is. 180 hours is what I think I remember. That sounds about right. Okay. 120 is what I'm told. 120, okay. Second thing I just wanted to mention, when you've had multiple requests from different council people, we all would like to see all of that. And I guess electronically is okay with you folks. That might make it a lot easier on you. If you have questions of any of the council members, we'd be happy to chat with you on the phone. Yes, sir. About what the requests were for. Thank you. Thank you, Chief. Appreciate it. Thank you. Are there any more questions? I think we've hit the end of our list. Thank you very much, Chief Gribbon, for stepping in and for the report. We appreciate your being here. Thank you. Thank you. We will continue with our agenda, and the next item on the agenda is committee reports, social services report. Council Member Myers, are you prepared to give the social services committee? Council Members, that's on page 85 of your packet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On February 8th, we had a meeting. The Social Services is the first time that we've had that meeting because we didn't have that committee before the restructure. And the committee elected me as the chair, and we have Ms. Peggy Henson, Councilman Peggy Henson, as the vice chair. We got an update on the decrease in the partner agency employees on LFCCG health plans. We discussed that. This update was given by Acting Director of HR Leslie Jarvis. She handed out an updated version of the satellite cost from 2008 to 2010 that was emailed. There was a short discussion on that. We talked about the money that was saved. Also, we had a brief overview of the Department of Social Service programs. The overview was given by Commissioner Beth Mills and others. Diane Woods and Christy Stanbaugh. Commissioner Mills outlined the organization of the Department of Social Services and discussed the growing needs of the homeless population in Lexington and the transportation issues and needs of the Family Care Center and Day Treatment Centers. Ms. Stanbaugh discussed space issues at the Senior Center, including space usage by outside agencies and increasing need for a new center due to the aging population. There's discussion on these topics as well. Number three, we had a discussion on the United Way of the Bluegrass outcome-based model, and this discussion was led by Bill Farmer, the president of the United Way of the Bluegrass. There were several questions asked and answered. Mr. Farmer and Commissioner Mills are to meet to discuss what we, LCCG, can do together, including a possible partnership between the two entities and how we can leverage resources. A motion by Council Member McCord to adjourn, seconded by Council Member Ford, passed without dissent. The committee was adjourned at 424. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Myers. Next is the Committee Report for Environmental Quality, Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Excuse me one second. I think we have a question for Council Member Myers. Council Member Lawless. I'd just like to make a clarification because I've had several people approach me since our meeting that saw it, and they were under the impression that we were partnering with United Way to write our grants or provide our services. And I explained we were partnering with them on outcome measures and how they're doing that rather than – So I just wanted to clarify that for our viewing audience. I would say that those discussions are still ongoing, and we did discuss how we could leverage our resources together. So I would not be surprised if we didn't partner with them in terms of leveraging our dollars. So there's more than just the outcome-based part of it. There are discussions about how we can actually leverage our resources together. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions? All right. Council Member Blue's Environmental Quality Committee. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The Environmental Quality Committee met on February 15th. There were three principal agenda items that day. The first one was a report from the Chair of the Environmental Quality Transition Team, Ms. Emma Tibbs. The report identified some strengths, some weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, and made several recommendations about the direction of the department. Secondly, the Director of the Division of Environmental Policy, Susan Bush, reported on the work of the division. This report included an overview of the Division, its missions, its goal, and its activities. Third, the Chair of the Environmental Commission, Paul Swiveland, reported on the mission and the activities of the Environmental Commission. The proprietary fund financials were included in the Committee's packet for information purposes, purposes. No motions came out of the meeting, and it was adjourned at 2.35 p.m. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Are there any questions for Council Member Blues? If not, this is the time for Council reports, and we'll start with Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a couple items for the administration. First, as was alluded to publicly yesterday. Apparently there's a draft report of the investigation in the Department of Fire. I'm just curious about why the council, and maybe the commission of law can answer this, why the council hasn't been privy to that draft report and why the administration would be privy to it. Because normally if you are privy to draft reports, and this is done by an outside person, it would be to make changes or suggestion of change. So I'm just curious about why the Council doesn't have a copy of that report yet. Councilman, just to give you some background on this, during the transition period I was told that this was in progress, and I think it was probably the last day that the former law commissioner was in office that he said, I just received this draft copy of this report. I really didn't have the background of why it was done at that point. And there are some gaps in the report and some follow-up. And my understanding is that the report was done because of a sexual harassment complaint from a female firefighter. Right. And so the report is lengthy, and at this point it's not completed. And so Commissioner Mason and I are meeting with the investigator this Friday to see if we can't get a good product done that is complete, because right now there's so many questions that we have about some of the timelines and things like that, that until we get those straightened out, I don't think it would make sense to give that out to anybody at this point. Well, but wouldn't the council have the same questions about timelines? And I'm just curious about the process of why a draft report that's done by an outside investigator would be given to one party of the government, not the other, because there's a problem with that where I sit, because we should be privy to the same information, because we are actually indeed the ones that went into closed session and came out and authorized it. So I would hope we can get that remedy, and Council could be part of that discussion, that there are changes made to a draft copy. I understand your concerns. And the other issue that's part of this that's sort of embedded in it is there's a privacy interest that the person involved has, and we're trying to consult with their counsel about that to make sure that when the report is released that everyone understands what's going to be part of it and that kind of thing. So I don't know if that helps or not. Well, you say you're meeting this week and you can give counsel an update maybe next Tuesday in closed session or something? We're meeting this Friday. Thank you. And the second item I had was a budget plan. Have we created a budget plan yet? When we left here last Tuesday, we had no plan about how our budget reduction will work. Do we have a time frame yet? When will we see a plan? Will it be next Monday at our retreat? I know a week ago you asked for the percentages from all the departments, so do we have an idea of when we're going to see that as a council? Our goal is, as we had talked about during that meeting, to have that as a part of discussions at the workshop, which is on Monday. A week, yeah, on Monday the 7th. That is correct. Now, we are still working through, as you can imagine, there are some information gaps that we have from agencies, so we're still working through that. But you have gathered all your information from the various agencies that you asked for? We have initial information. There is some, it's not complete. Okay. And that's what we're working through with meetings and phone calls and to gather that information so we can present some options to you. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And, Commissioner, just to reiterate, that's Monday, March 7th, 1 o'clock to 5 o'clock in the Phoenix Building? That is correct. Third floor? I believe so, yes. Third floor conference room, administration, council members, and others. Yes. Okay. Can you send us a note on that? Can you just send us an e-mail update? It was forwarded from my office by e-mail. You had sent it to me, and I had sent it to all council members. We can resend that if you'd like. That's fine. Okay. It was just sent, she said. Thank you. project. And so for those that couldn't be there just very quickly, this project began turning dirt today, and it will go through November 7th. And the portion that is being worked on through that period of time is from old Higby Mill all the way into Keithshire. And Terry Justice with LFUCG is the project manager, is the point person for questions. And one of the things that we have done is to set up an e-mail tree. As I get information, if you want to be on that, you can contact my office and just give us your e-mail address. My phone number is 258-3215, or my e-mail is just jmccord at lextonky.gov. And we want to make sure that everyone has a free flow of information. But one of the key things that we shared the other night that citizens need to understand is, is that not only is Clay's Mill going to be in a state of disrepair during that time frame, but also the Wellington School, Wellington Elementary School, goes online in August. So we're going to have 600 kids and their families trying to find their way during all that process. And then this summer, the state will be doing a reconfiguration of the intersection at Harrodsburg Road and New Circle, a major construction project as well. So we've got a tremendous amount of traffic issues, but a tremendous amount of infrastructure improvement that's going to be happening in the district. And so I'm very appreciative for all parties, all hands on deck. The last thing is from the administration, I would just, again, I've requested over and over and over what we actually spend on golf as we head into this budget. We've worked over the last number of months to try and put what are the categories that we will measure golf. We still haven't received that. I think it's critical as we head into the budget season that we, at least as a council administration, understand what it is we actually do spend that on. So I look forward to getting that information from the administration. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Carlsby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to announce that on March 4th here at the government center, there will be a barbecue, and the proceeds go to the Ruby Bailey Foundation. And many of you all may or may not know, but Ruby Bailey has a center in Woodhill, and it services a lot of the children in the area, a lot of the refugees in the area, and they have a veterans outreach there, and they just do all kinds of wonderful services out of that center, which is in Woodhill, and I would just encourage everybody, if you're in the building, to buy a little barbecue and support this foundation. Thank you. Council Member Myers. That was from earlier, Vice Mayor, I'm sorry. Okay. Council Member Lawless. I just want to let everybody know the Ellsford Neighborhood Association will meet tonight at 7 p.m. at Woodland Christian Church. everyone is welcome to attend and the historic South Hill Neighborhood Association will meet March 8th at 6pm at the First United Methodist Church Parsonage Building in the basement and I also just found out that someone that many of us know Larry Stirr who from John's Run Walk Shop and an avid runner and kind of a community figure passed away today. And so I want to send thoughts to his friends and family and let folks know. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to announce that we have put together a steering committee with Friends of Wolf Run Creek and Bluegrass Pride. There's several organizations involved. And we're going to be conducting a stream clean on April 30th. And this will be streams in the 11th District, Wolf Run and Vaughn's Branch. and I'll provide more information on that later if anyone wants to volunteer. Also tomorrow evening, Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association will meet at 6 o'clock at the Village Branch Library and Richard Maloney, our CAO, will be there, Mayor Jim Gray, Vice Mayor Gordon, and I really appreciate you taking your time. with many other government officials. So I appreciate that group considerable amount and the hard work that they do. So it's even, you know, real important that you guys are coming, and I appreciate that so much. Last, I attended the Firefighters Awards Banquet this past Friday, and that's the first one that I have attended, And I have to say, I really enjoyed that. And I know that there's problems within the department, but I also know that there are many, many things going on in this city that we're not involved in. And a lot of times not good things, but with good outcomes many times. So they work very, very hard, and I appreciate them. and I appreciated the presentations. And folks that were there, they recognized some citizens that had gone above and beyond to rescue someone and then just told stories of different rescues. And I was just moved by it and wanted to share it with you. Thank you. Thank you. Now it's time for a public comment about issues not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to comment? If not, that takes us to the end of our agenda, and I think Council Member Lane has a motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move that we go into closed session presented to KRS 61.8101F for a discussion that may lead to the discipline or dismissal of an employee. Do I hear a second? Council Member Ellinger seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We'll go ahead and go into closed session. Are we live? I think we are live. Do I hear a motion to come back into open session? Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger to come back into closed session. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Council Member Ford, did you have a motion? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to place on the docket for the Thursday night, March 3rd meeting of the council, a resolution expressing that the Urban County Council has no confidence in the current leadership of the fire department. Second. And so the motion is to refer to be placed on the docket Thursday night a resolution which states the council has expressed no confidence in the current leadership of the Division of Fire. Correct? That's correct. And the second was, who seconded that? Council Member Meyer seconded. Is there any discussion? Council Member McCord. I want to make it very clear that the motion that we are passing is to put this onto the docket for Thursday night. And that is what we are voting for. That's all we are voting for at this point in time is to put this onto the docket, and therefore I support putting it onto the docket. We're actually voting to recommend it be put on the docket. Okay. Any other comment? Thank you for that clarification. Council Member Lane. A request roll call vote, please. Okay. Any other comment or discussion on the motion? All right. We will use the electronic voting. Will you please log in, aye or nay? All those in favor, aye. All those opposed, nay. Do you want to technically want a roll call vote, or do you just want electronic? There are 13 people here, so we need three more votes. Electronic. We need one more vote, I think. Did you turn it back on? Okay. So we have a vote of 13-0 to recommend Thursday night that that go on the docket. Is there any other business? Motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. I'm not a man.