Music ¶¶ The End Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. reorganization. And so I believe the mayor is up first. Welcome. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Vice Mayor and council members. Thank you all for calling this special meeting to talk about our organizational framework. I know how special council meetings can be, and I really want to Thank you for doing just that. I thought that before I asked Richard and other commissioners to address you today on how the proposed framework will encourage more work efficiency, that I would just talk a little bit about the overall sort of broad theme. What we do want to do is illustrate how this proposed framework will encourage more efficiency over both the short term and the long term. How it will save money, how it will improve institutional performance and results, and also, importantly, how the people within this framework will continue to root out problems, problems like we've seen in our issues with out-of-control medical costs over time and institutional morale. Now, I want to say right out of the gate that there is no silver bullet to any of these management issues. And I think it's important to say that it would be a big mistake for any of us to claim there ever are silver bullets. But I do hope that you've seen that in my new role in the last four months, I and this administration have been willing to chase out problems and address them. Now, I'm not seeking praise or tribute for that. Don't expect it at all. But the choices and the decisions that we've made in the first four months illustrate an organization, people. Not boxes, but people who are tackling some often long embedded problems. Will there be more? Yes. For sure. The lug nuts will come off. The wheels will come off. But that's what management, and many of you know this because you've been in management. You've done it. That's what management is all about. It's about problem solving day to day. A good organization is one that's flexible and fluid but also solid. It's built around both purpose and mission, and it includes both day to day and systemic problem solving. Now, a few more observations I'd like to make before turning this over to Richard. What is an organization? If we look at root words and are curious and inquisitive about words and language, we know then that the word organization, not unexpectedly, is and comes from organ, organism. What are the characteristics of organisms? Well, they're living and they're changing and they're growing. or they are calcifying and decaying and dying. A living and thriving organization is one that's dynamic and fluid and flexible. Or in the words of the founder of McDonald's, the late Ray Kroc, when you're green, you grow. When you're ripe, you rot. I know that you want your city's organization, its operations, to be green and growing. Now, also, what is it that an organization table or structure or framework are all about? In my view, from my own experience, perhaps like many of you, an organization table or framework is a snapshot in time of a living and dynamic organization. It reflects the current condition. It reflects how work is organized to achieve results around people, around leaders, managers, systems, and processes. What I've observed is that we as an institution, as a government, we have symptoms. We have symptoms that for whatever reason we've not addressed in an organized way. so that problems, what we've experienced is problems just tend to escalate till they become almost combustible. Problems not tackled and not addressed. Now, I've been advocating that we address them, and I'm confident, though I'm not cocky at all, that we've got a pretty solid management team in place today to do just that, problem solving, problem prevention. Now, it's never going to be perfect. Again, that's what management's about. Continuous improvement, getting up every morning and thinking, how can I improve today what we did yesterday? But today, and I think, and stay with me on this one for a second, because today, and frankly for the foreseeable future, there will be a lot of blocking and tackling to get at these problems. Now, I admit to being a student and, in a sense, a practitioner of management. From the time I was about 19, I loved reading Peter Drucker, who may not mean anything to most folks, but he's sort of the icon of modern management. He died a few years ago at 92. And Drucker says it best. He says, an organization chart or a table is a snapshot in time of the way we order or organize our work around people, around relationships, around behaviors to achieve results. There are no perfect formulas or frameworks. There are time-tested models and frameworks. We hear language like a matrix organization. We use language like functional relationships, operational roles. We talk about spans of control. That will probably be some of the conversation that you all have today. We talk about good business and strategic planning. processes and models. What I want to say in closing is that I hope that as you all examine the org table and the chart, that you, like I, will recognize that you know these people. You're working with these folks day to day just as I am. I'm working with them closely. we'll make adjustments, we'll need to make adjustments when they are required, and they will always be needed to be made. So thanks a lot. I appreciate you all being here with us today. And, Richard, turn it over to you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor Gray. Welcome, Richard. Council members, I want to thank you all for this opportunity to allow us to bring back the restructure. And from the last meeting, we were able to get some information to you on the cost savings from the mayor's office structures, and these savings are generated from combining functions of commissioners and advisory staff. I also want to give you all a heads up. There will be no budget impact for the FY12 budget if we do this, we are. Next, I'd like to go in and give you where we are today. As you know, you all met all of the commissioners. We've been linked with you all, and I'm very excited about our commissioners. They've done a tremendous job, and they've got a lot of talent to bring, and I want to be able to use that talent. And there was a lot of questions brought back while we were coming now for the reorg instead of coming earlier. We had a plan back in February, but I'm glad we waited because some of these ideas, as we went through the budget, we found out fit better because the way the budget was working out. And what I want to commend is the commissioners for giving me these ideas. It was a group effort, and we had a lot of help from HR. We had a lot of help from my law department and also from my staff. And they've done a lot of good work putting it together, as you all have got all the information to have. What I'd like to do now is give you some examples on how we're going to be efficient. And then by doing that, I'm going to first have Janet Graham get up in a few minutes to talk about how we're moving the human resources to the Department of Law. And then after that, Jane Drister will speak on the move of the budget to finance. And then next will be Cheryl. She will talk about the combination of the department within her as well as the Department of Water Quality. And so I would first go ahead and let Janet get up and talk about. Welcome, Commissioner. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate the opportunity to address you all regarding the proposed restructure, which would put the Human Resources Division under the Law Department. I think that will have several benefits for the urban county government. I think it will promote legal compliance within all of the urban county government. It will be a good fit because I think human resources has been in different places within the government. And it's a good fit with law because we already have significant overlap and collaboration. And the law department will be able to handle the increased workload by making some structural and positional changes, which I'm going to describe to you. I first want to talk about the benefits about having increased efforts at legal compliance on the front end. If we focus, and HR is sometimes the first line of when legal questions come up, and by having the law department involved on the front end, I think we'll be able to prevent some litigation and some legal questions that might arise, because at the time that they get to you, sometimes after time has passed, they become more serious. By putting HR under law, we'll also be able to do an increased focus training on the training of our employees. I think that's a very important way to prevent legal potentialities from happening by having well-trained employees. And we can also do this through increased information sharing between human resources and our other departments in the urban county government. In my view, the more information you share with managers and division directors, and the better they understand about what's going on, that can only benefit the urban county government. As I mentioned before, HR is a very good fit under law. We already have a lot of collaboration going on between those two areas. We work with them significantly on hiring and pre-employment inquiries. Once people are hired, we work with them. If grievances or discipline pops up, we give them legal advice. We also assist them with complying with state and federal civil rights laws. We work with them and also jointly with the EEOC. So all of that will be a benefit. And right now we're working on collective bargaining, which we've been working with human resources and law in partnership with our outside collective bargainer. To make this a successful move, I'm going to be requesting you all to allow me to make some structural changes which we need to do. I'll be effectively managing a bigger department with additional duties. I'll basically be doubling the size of the law department. And so in order to realign the work to account for an increased managerial function, what What I'd like to do and what I'm asking you all to allow me to do is create a new positional structure that ensures that work will flow appropriately and that we won't have bottlenecks by too many people having to report directly up to me. And let me describe how we're going to do that, which is basically a budget savings. There is no budgetary impact on this and it would not be an increase in our personnel complement. What I would like to do is take a senior human resource manager position, which was vacated by a lady named Vonda Melton. In discussing with HR, they do not believe that position needs to be filled in the future, so the funding would remain. It's in FY12's budget. I'd like to take just a portion of that salary to create some internal managerial attorney positions, which would allow me to spread the workflow so that we don't have, so that work flows efficiently and timely in a manner for everybody to deal with, and that I don't have so many direct reports coming to me that I won't be able to get work out in a timely fashion. So those are the basic points regarding the HR reorg, and I think it will have a large benefit to the LFUCG. If we can increase efficiency and promote legal compliance, I think that will be a benefit to the entire urban county government. So thank you, and I will turn it back to Richard. That will be Jane. We'll come up and speak. Welcome, Commissioner. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, let me say that first and foremost, my responsibility to the citizens, to you as a council, and to the mayor is to ensure the financial integrity of this government. To that end, the division directors within finance and myself work together as a team to address all the challenges as it relates to budget, revenue collection, accounting, and procurement. I think that you have seen over the last few months on a regular basis how well this team is working together. One of the most important lessons that I have learned in all my years of experience is how critical it is for the divisions that are related to financial oversight of a government to meet regularly, communicate effectively, and to understand the implications of their decisions upon the other aspects of financial management. I believe this is accomplished most effectively by the structure that the mayor has presented to you today, and that involves two changes, one moving the budget office within the finance department as well as moving the payroll function currently in HR under the finance department. Personnel costs account for, as you well know, approximately 65% of this government's expenditures and comes through in the form of employee pay. I think it's critical to have the payroll function as a part of the finance responsibilities to provide the appropriate level of financial oversight. In my previous experience, I sought out the expertise of a group of CFOs from some of the top companies in Louisville to look and review at different organizational structures for the finance and administration of the government there. The companies, among others, included Yum Brands, Humana, Brown Forman, and GE representatives. They all endorsed a structure that included budgeting and payroll within the umbrella of finance. This structure isn't different than many other governments across the country. For example, two merged governments within our region have similar organizational structures. Nashville, Tennessee, finance includes management and budget, finance operations, treasury, purchasing, and they have a couple of others, actually, business solutions and public property services. In addition, Louisville Metro has a Department of Management and Budget that I know pretty well that includes budget, accounting, purchasing, revenue, insurance and risk management, grants management, and debt and capital management. This structure is also similar to other cities, both larger and more similar in size to Lexington, Fayette County. One of the larger ones, Atlanta, Georgia, budget is included in the finance department as well as payroll. Greensboro, North Carolina, has a budget and evaluation office and a finance and administrative services department, but they report to a similar position as mine. St. Paul, Minnesota, has a finance department that includes budgeting and payroll. Indianapolis, Indiana, Office of Finance and Management, which includes budget, financial reporting, accounting, cash management, as well as some others. Tampa and Fort Wayne, Indiana are two other examples, and I just wanted to demonstrate that this would not be different and works well and has been reviewed by financial professionals for this type of structure. There are governments that are structured differently. Right up the road, Cincinnati, Ohio has a separate budget department. The state has a Governor's Office for Policy and Management. What I think is important, though, is to ensure that you're comparing apples to apples when you're looking at the actual functions of those agencies. Again, I'm familiar with how the Governor's Office for Policy and Management is structured, having been in that agency as well. So I guess really one of the concerns that I've talked to a few of you about is really the concern of segregation of duties or having appropriate checks and balances, if you will, within the department. I think you should put that to rest for a couple of reasons. One, we have a system of internal controls within this government that is in place just in order to address those checks and balance issues. And you as a body are the best checks and balance that we have to review what the administration is bringing forward to you. I can honestly say that we haven't agreed as we've worked through this budget on every recommendation, but there were open discussions, we worked through any issues, and were able to present to you what we thought was the best financial plan. Again, my goal is to bring to you sound fiscal policies, accurate and timely reports, and to be responsive to your request. I think this structure promotes that and accommodates that. So I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you. Next will be Chelle. Welcome. Commissioner. Hi, thanks. Well, I guess I'm the cleanup batter here on the reorg. What I want to talk about is probably the elephant in the room. I think that what we have done with this proposed restructure is to take two departments that had been separated and put them together, which seems like a very large daunting task. And I won't say that it isn't, but I also think that it was necessary, and it's the only way that we're going to be able to line up systems so that we get work done as efficiently as we can. We have what we're proposing is including six divisions in the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works, which is quite an acronym. But I've found that in putting those six divisions together, we have a very common purpose. I think one thing that you'll notice in those divisions is that we primarily touch the citizens on a daily basis. The work that we do is focused on the operation. Most of the other services in government have a component that's more internal or support, but our department basically focuses on citizen operation. And with that in mind, we all have the common mission, which is great customer service at a great value. That's what we're here to do. So we do, we make sure the sewers work, we make sure the garbage gets picked up. We make sure the roads get patched. We make sure the signs that get knocked over by a car get put back up. Those are the kinds of things we do on a daily basis. And with that as a common purpose, that gives us something as a group to work together as a mission. And I think that's very important. I think Richard said one time that he thought I ran things like a factory, which may not be seen as a compliment. But since most of my life I worked in one, the way I approach this kind of thing is I look at the end product. What is it I'm trying to do here, and then how do I organize the work to deliver that product in the most effective and efficient way. And by putting the six divisions together, we have been able to take a holistic look across all of our operating divisions and make some recommendations that I think as a first wave are very manageable and you will see improvement in services right away. What we're proposing to do is make a few changes of personnel, but mostly what we're looking it is changing work alignment. What I have to also say and thank all of our directors, we have six fantastic directors and two extremely capable administrative officers, officer senior in our office. So I am very blessed to have exceptional people working with me, and I'm very convinced that we'll be able to deliver an improved product for you. If you look through your notes, I think fundamentally one of my priorities in this suggestion is to make sure our Division of Water Quality is properly resourced to deliver the goals that we have set for ourselves as a community and through the EPA in making our water quality healthy. That's what we're after here. So there will be internal moves within the Division of Water Quality to make sure that they are properly resourced. But also another thing I want to do with this is make sure that we are clear on where ownership is. And so, for example, just within our department, if you have a water problem, and you all have been in this situation before, you have to stop and think about, well, does that go to Charlie or does that go to Marwan or do I send it over to Sam? Because some water functions are in each of those three divisions. So what I'm going to try to do is line it up so that water problems go to water. That doesn't mean we don't coordinate across some boundaries at times because we share equipment and people. But for the most part, water is going to be in water quality. Waste will be in the waste area, those kinds of things. We're going to refocus streets and roads to focus on streets and roads. Right now they're scattered across several different programmatic areas. So what I'm proposing specifically is that we would move the function of stormwater maintenance into the Division of Water Quality. We would move the urban forestry program, only the program, into the Division of Environmental Policy where we can develop and nurture that program into a very proactive one. We would change the name of Streets, Roads, and Forestry back to Streets and Roads, which is where it came from, and focus their effort on that activity. And then we would pull a couple of functions from the engineering area that are currently water-funded that deal directly with water, such as the tap-on area, the tap-on permitting and fee area, as well as the unsewered areas of Lexington that is also being managed currently out of engineering. Again, we will have to do some internal reorganization to reallocate some duties, and that's something that we'll also keep you apprised of. I believe you have a proposed org chart from the Division of Water Quality. But that, in a nutshell, kind of describes what we'd like to do with this program. I'm very confident that we can line it up and deliver a better service and also hopefully focus things so that the citizens are a whole lot – They're able to point to where problems are and where they can get them solved without having to call across three or four different divisions to do that, which is the way it is today. So with that, I'll give it back to Richard and welcome your questions later. Thank you. In conclusion, I want to thank the council, because a lot of y'all were able to help work with me over the last four months, and we've always been straightforward, and y'all have given us some ideas how we can make some good changes, and I appreciate you all's help on this and support. What we would like you all to do is, if you can, is put this ordinance on the docket tonight if it's possible. And also, I do want to say one thing. In the four months we've been here, we had a lot of bottlenecks. And with the staff here, we've been able to find out where these bottlenecks are. And doing this reorg, we're going to be able to make it a lot better. And I think we're here to make this the best government possibly And I know you all have the same heart to do the same thing, but I just wish you all support this, and we will be glad to answer your questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. Council members, now is the time for questions. Council Member Beard. Leadoff batter. A couple of questions, I think. Okay. Probably Commissioner Graham on the question of a human resources director. Yes. Is that still going to continue? Are we still continuing the search? My plan was to start the advertisement for that as soon as we get through the budget and the reorg process. And then the second question I guess I can just throw out to the group, and that involves the CIO office. And I don't know who is going to be the visionary as far as IT is concerned, but we've got to have one. We've got two good directors right now. We've got Chad Coggle and Mike Nugent have been great help, and Melissa, I have her come up here. We've been able to meet with them weekly. We have meetings with them weekly, and every two weeks we have a staff meeting with them. And it's been going well, and they've been able to show us a lot of cost savings. And what we find out right now is we need a lot of cross-training. And with the CIO, we don't feel it's the time to hire a CIO. We need to get back to get cross-training. And I'd like Melissa to follow up on some other information she has. We just feel that right now a CIO is not going to add a lot of value to the government. And looking at the budget and expenditures from the previous CIO, there was a lot of money spent on new software that we don't have the support to maintain, and so now we're working on getting the employees cross-trained to maintain what we have, and we need to do that before we can consider expanding out further. Well, I will respectfully, I feel very strongly about the CIO position. I think we need somebody who is a visionary, who can not just knit these things together at the operational level, but can put a hat on the whole situation so that all the various departments don't start going hither and yon. And that sometimes happens. You turn around and find out somebody has spent $150,000 on a piece of software, and the IT people don't know nothing about it. Yeah, and I can't really, I would not disagree with what you're saying, Julian, Councilmember Beard. In my own history, sort of like yours probably is, that you went through iterations in your company where you had a role at this level filled, and perhaps you didn't. I've been through those iterations myself where in a private environment, in a private company, we had a chief technology officer, chief information officer. than we went to not. Right now, I think the interpretation is, the feeling is, that it's a whole lot about blocking and tackling right now. I used that language before. Now, we get to the point that we can both utilize and afford that role, and it may be someone from outside the government, then I think we ought to consider it. But I was impressed in the transition with the competencies that we have within the directors in this department today. And that's what Richard was confirming. But I think we should, you know, be vigilant and very aware of just what you're describing. So, you know, thinking about that, thinking forward about that, getting through the blocking and tackling period right now, actually encouraging and elevating these folks in their roles today and holding them and encouraging accountability and as much as they can do today in their present roles is part of this model as well. No reflection on the incumbents that are sitting there doing the work now, the blocking and tackling is correct. But you've got to have a coach somewhere along there, too, in my opinion. But just write it down on a piece of paper so I can say I told you so at some point. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My question is a little bit broader maybe than what the presentation is and somewhat historical. And I respect the fact that the mayor gets to be the mayor and to arrange the government the best way that he or she sees fit to make it work. My question has to do with I know that the government spent money to study our processes and how best for them to work, and some implementations were made based on that. does this undo some things that were studied and thought to be better? Or how does this change what I perceive as a deliverable that we got that said, you should do this, this, this, and this to make the government more efficient? And now we're coming back to change that in a time frame that's relatively close to when those changes were first made. I'm just, I don't know if one of you knows that specifically or not, but I just know having been on the sidelines when all that happened, we did spend money, we got outcomes, and the government began to change according to those, how does this affect that time frame or that spending? I can answer that question. I'm Sheila Huff, the Advisor for Performance Management and Efficiency, and I have read that management audit from the group that came in and did the study, and at that time there were recommendations that were made to move certain functions around. And I think at the time that was a recommendation of the group that came in and interviewed the people that were in leadership at that time. And right now some of the changes have been made to maximize our current leadership. We have all new commissioners with a very wide variety of expertise, and the project right now of moving this around is making sure that we maximize those resources and their experience that they have. So, yes, we have moved some things around, but it's to maximize the people that we have in leadership. So you saved us money by not studying it and just doing it? Well, we are making sure that we're utilizing the people that we have, talking to them extensively about the information that they have. Just like with Janet, we made sure that she had experience and expertise in the human resources realm, that other organizations were grouping those two functions and made sure that we were maximizing that in our organization. Thank you. Are there – okay. Council Member Martin. Thank you. And I guess I have a follow-up question on the management audit. But I guess my concern is that if we don't sort of try to maintain the best of what's gone before us, then we're just simply throwing everything out for the, you know, like the CIO. I think they put together a lot of new information systems, try to get different systems to work together. Are we continuing? You meant this not to be your area, but are we continuing our current systems? Are we going to buy new software? In terms of information technology? Yeah. To my understanding, and you all can correct me if I'm wrong, we're going to maintain what we currently have and to maximize the things that we've already purchased, like what Melissa was saying, is that we've invested over the years in many programs and many software systems that we're not maximizing currently. And the focus, instead of seeking out new systems, is to make sure that our staff is currently maintaining those and maximizing those for our abilities. So what from the management audit are you guys going to keep? There are many things that are recommended that were put into place immediately, And if you'd like, we can get you an analysis of that. I can't tell you right off the top of my head what we're keeping because the list is pretty extensive. But we can make sure that we follow up with you and let you know. Yeah, I guess I'd like to know because, I mean, we did spend a lot of money on that, and I guess it may have happened before I came on council. But, you know, the same with economic development studies. And you don't just kind of do them every two or four years and kind of throw them out and start over again. Thank you. I had a couple of questions for Commissioner Graham. We talked about this in our link as well. And I'm still, you know, all the arguments you said for bringing human resources to law seem to also apply for risk management. I still don't understand why those two departments are so different. but risk management is about learning from liability trends across the country and taking what you learned and applying it to human resources. That's the way I understand risk management. So why is that up in sort of the political arm with Richard rather than in the legal department? I think to answer that, probably there are multiple aspects of that, But one of them would be, I think it's been, Richard has been, I think, reviewing kind of the training and functional aspects of risk management. And with that, I think I see risk management as a little bit different than HR putting it under law because I think HR, there's the compliance aspect of HR, but I think risk management, you get into more safety training, that kind of thing. And to be honest, I think it's functioning well under the CAO at this point, and, you know, we'll continue to monitor that. But I don't see the need for a drastic change there. Of course, I'm sure there are different views on that. Okay. Well, thank you. Richard, I had a question for you. I'm trying to hit my five minutes quickly. Okay. We had a – and I know Kevin Adkins is not here, but we – in our link committee, we look at economic development, And I asked specifically whether there was going to be an Office of Economic Development, and we were told, no, there's not, yet there's one on the organizational chart, and it's right up there. So is this – so the chief development officer, is that Mr. Atkins? Yeah. So what is this Office of Economic Development that's underneath him? Does that have employees? Do you want to answer that, John? There are no other employees other than the Chief Development Officer. So, Sheila, you know. Sheila said that we would just like to keep it on the old charts to show the function of the office. Excuse me, but there are no other positions. So you're asking the council to approve an Office of Economic Development, but you're going to have no employees in it? Yeah, that's correct. I mean, basically it had a small budget last year, but Kevin Adkins is fulfilling that role that Anthony Wright used to fulfill, but he has added duties as well. So is there going to be a budget assigned to the Office of Economic Development? Only his salary. Okay. All right. Thanks. Ms. Driscoll. I'm sorry. I had one. Thank you. Looks like I have three seconds. I'll have to come back. I'm out. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Ms. Hupp? Earlier you talked about, with respect to the Management Partners audit, that you, with a new team of leadership, you threw some of those things out because you're trying to maximize the new leadership that you have. If I'm incorrect in the way I characterize it. Well, there are certain things that were recommended that we are reevaluating, and some of them have been reversed in the organization. So when you talked about the new management team that's here and you wanted to maximize their skill sets, respectfully, they're not the ones on the ground that do the work, right? So if you reorganize people to them instead of them to the people that do the work, is that the best way to do it? Just to reiterate what Cheryl Taylor was talking about earlier, that across the organization we're looking at grouping-like functions. And that is not something necessarily that was done with the management audit, making sure that we're putting the right people and the right functions in place to increase efficiency, communication, and to reduce redundancies. So that's what we're looking at across the organization holistically. So in reference to what you're saying, we're not lining everything up according to one person's area of expertise. We're making sure that we're grouping everything in the organization to achieve its maximum efficiency. Okay. Could you elaborate just a little bit more on what you said earlier about maximizing the leadership teams? Absolutely. Just to stick with Cheryl's area as an example, because I've been working with her extensively in her group, is maximizing the people that she has throughout the ranks. Like with Sam over at Streets and Roads and Forestry, We're going to move forestry under Susan Bush, who has an incredible background in the state forestry program and who might manage that for the entire state, and then allowing Sam to manage the streets and roads functions to make sure that we're maximizing the people that we have over there, the equipment and the funds. And that way we can make sure that we're getting those potholes filled efficiently. So in that way it reduces his span of control and makes sure that he's getting out there and getting that job done. That's just one example. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Yeah, I just wanted to comment. A few Council members have mentioned the management audit. And as I recall, we have implemented a lot of the recommendations off the management audit. And I know in previous years the administration would actually put in, when we were voting on it, whether it was the management audit recommendation or not, so we would know what we were approving. But I think two of the members who commented also, And also one thing that we realized during the process with the management audit was that some of the areas where recommendations were being made that oftentimes the research that was done in those areas, and I'll just pull out FIRE, for example, there was not a FIRE specialist who conducted the study. And so when we started looking at how their recommendations fit with our government and the fact that nobody, that the person who was making the recommendations had no background in public safety and more specifically fire, we found that some of the recommendations probably were not applicable to what we could do here locally. Thank you. Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question for Mr. Maloney. And as he comes, I want to make just a few comments. I guess my question, I'll start with a question. The proposed organizational chart that you guys have now, is it ready for implementation? Are we ready? If adopted by council, are we ready? Are all parts and readjustments of government ready to perform at an optimal level of performance? We're ready to go ahead and get this so we can go that direction. And we've got the people ready. Once we make these changes, we'll be able this summer to be in full gear to make these things work. But we have to get you all's approval, and we like to do it as quickly as possible so we can start making these changes. And it goes back to what we're trying to get the bottlenecks out. We have a bunch of bottlenecks in this government, and we're trying to get them out. And by doing this reorg, we'll be able to do that. And, Richard, I appreciate that. And the context of my readiness question isn't to put a burden on the council for expediency and isn't to put pressure on you guys as the administration. It's just to talk about the implementation and the level, we hope, of effort and consideration that you guys have put into it. I do, I am, as a councilman, pleased to see that some of the suggestions placed in the transition team reports. And, you know, there's been great mention to the management audit, and some of those things have been implemented. Some were good ideas, perhaps, as Council Member Crosby just mentioned, some perhaps were not good fits. But the most recent study, as it pertains to government now, as opposed to government in 07 and 08, has been the transition team reports. And I was fortunate to, as many of us were, to participate in that. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Martin, Doug, and we have one more meeting, man. Doug mentioned, you know, not being here during that management audit. And, of course, I wasn't. But I'll step aside from a counselor's role and tell you where I was. I was an employee in government, civil service, and speaking solely for myself and other employees may feel the same. I remember a time of great anxiety. I remember a time of low and diminishing morale in regards to that process. I had a sense of folks from the outside not necessarily knowing urban county government and Lexington Fayette County having a sense of knowing more about your job than you know about your job. So with all that said, you know, that is time passed. The question that I had when you guys first presented this reorganization was, would it cost us a lot of money, such as the management audit did, and would it waste us a lot of time? Because in conjunction with that management audit, a lot of time was spent. And that's what I think alleviated to the sense of anxiety, not knowing. There were a lot of things that were recommended that were never implemented, but even the fact that they were, it didn't help. So, again, I guess I would sum up, it hasn't cost us a lot of money. It will overall lead to efficiencies, and it won't take us 12 to 18 months to implement. We're ready to go to work, put service on the ground. July 1st. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner Taylor, I've got a couple questions. Commissioner Taylor and I have talked of the philosophy of this a number of times, and as everybody knows, I'm very, very happy that she's come back to government and very just happy we have capable people. But this just seems really unwieldy to me, and I'm not a systems person like you. You are a sort of systems analyst. You can understand how different groups of people work together well. And this is the Division of Water Quality. And my concern, I've expressed it before, is that we've got so many large projects and so much money being spent in this particular department that we run the risk of saving a commissioner salary but missing that somewhere in a project because we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be spent out of this department in the coming years. And my concern is that there is so much to do. And if you were a superhuman person and didn't require sleep, I might have a better feeling about it. But it just seems like there's so much that has to be done in this. and as imperfect a human being as we all are, I feel like that there needs to be maybe two departments there. How can we get comfort on this? Well, I think for me the main comfort is, going back again to the directors that I have, I have very, very capable, talented people. And the unwieldiness of the chart that you held up is actually a huge improvement over where we are currently. For example, in the Division of Water Quality, Charlie, with all of the responsibilities that he has to the consent decree, has 12 direct reports. And everything goes through Charlie. And Charlie is a superhuman. But, again, that's a lot of direct, and that's not people, that's functions. He has, everything goes through Charlie. So part of what I'm trying to do with that proposal is develop the division of water quality to look more structurally. There are three main structures. One is operationally focused. One is administratively focused. And then the third is the technical services part of the work. And that's a very similar model that we've done in Waste that has been very successful. and then we're moving in that direction with SAM and Streets and Roads because we're really focusing heavily on operation and building up strength in the administrative side. So I think that it looks big, but it's a big job. But at the same time, I've got to build up some strength for Charlie at that level because we are managing over 20 contractors on a daily basis in all these projects that we're doing. We have people that are out literally, you know, every time it rains, what we're dealing with out there. We've got a lot going on on a daily basis as well as long term. And so that's why I'm proposing actually reworking that area. One of the things from the management audit, because I came in just as that was being wrapped up before, they did suggest that we move all water function together. And so even though I realize there are bits and pieces, I think it's very confusing the way it is today. And, in fact, we waste a lot of time because we get an issue that's a water issue, and I have to email Charlie, Sam, Marwan, Rod. Everybody has to get involved, and then we figure out whose it is, and then we deal with it. So I think this structure, by lining that work up, will make it more manageable, not less. And, of course, you know, I feel very, very fortunate to have someone like Charlie running that division as it is. And I agree, and I want to make sure that he and you have the right amount of support to manage this, because before Charlie had you to sort of help run everything, and your time is going to be divided among some of these other departments, which have their own issues to deal with. There are a lot of issues. I mean, you think about basically just dealing with our customers alone every week. I mean, Steve and Waste Management, they have about 190,000 pickups a week. I mean, that's a lot of people, and you make a mistake, and people will let you know that because they feel very passionately about their garbage. I mean, people do. And so we're constantly working in Steve's area with that same model to make that a much more streamlined process, and I'm really enthused about what you're going to see in waste. I mean, with the new GPS and the new MRF, those kinds of things are going to make that operation really take off. So Charlie does have a huge burden, really, with what he's got going on over there, but he's a very capable person. I try to spend as much time with Charlie as I can, and I am trying to learn the other areas. So I'll be the first to admit I am not your technical expert, really, in any of these six areas. I'm more of a generalist across the six, and I am spending some time really more probably in streets and roads than some of the others, but I'm learning. I'm learning about the difference in asphalt and concrete, you know, that kind of thing. So I will get better. And I think I know a little bit of time for me to get a little bit better with the details. But I have great confidence that Charlie will be in good shape and that with the new structure that we've proposed, by being allowed to fill that structure, he will have what he needs to succeed. Well, the last thing we want to do is burn you and Charlie out. No, you're right. Absolutely. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We'll need to supply them with lots of chocolate chip cookies. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I used to do burnout training for the National Center for Disease Control, and one of the things was it's okay to burn out, just don't make an ash of yourself. So that being said, I'm very excited about the new organizational structure. It may not be perfect, and it may be that it will change because in government, in good business, in management, you try things, and when you find out something's not working, you make a change. You don't pay for a study, implement some of the things, and whether they're working or not, just keep on because you paid for the study. The transition team did a pretty in-depth study for free, and many of these things were built into that. I want to say that I was terribly saddened when Commissioner Taylor left during the last administration, although working with the acting commissioner, Susan Bush, was absolutely a delight, and I am so glad that she's still part of our government. And she had big shoes to fill them, and she filled them very well. I will also say that my district has had some of the, as you know, very major streetscape, road projects, Maxwell Street, et cetera. And so I've had a lot of opportunity to deal with these different divisions. In the last two and a half months, I've gotten more done than I did in the two years prior. For over two years, I was trying to get a flashing light that was necessary for safety, safety, two of them, where fatalities had happened on Upper Street. They're up now. And it's a delight. And if anybody can do it, Commissioner Taylor can. And I think that these absolutely, last year during our links, we saw that the administration was taking a lot of water quality money and funding positions in these particular divisions. as because they did, you know, water quality things like sewers and et cetera. So it makes sense to me that they are under the division of environmental quality and public works as a combination. And, of course, not all of Public Works is there, but I highly support that part of this organizational chart, and I look forward to working with Commissioner Taylor and all the good people that are working with her. So thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I would first like to just, you know, compliment the mayor and CEO of Maloney, because I think you have put together a really good team. I've really been very impressed with all the commissioners and directors that you've recruited, and, you know, that makes me feel pretty good. There are only two areas that I have some concerns about, and I just wanted to put this out on the table just for you to maybe take another look at that. And I would like to mirror Council Member Beard's comment. You know, I feel that we might want to reconsider the CIO issue because that is the, I guess you call it, the electrical system of our government that runs everything that we do here. And I look at the CIO as, I think the word Julian used was, visionary about what we're doing and where we're going in the future. and our directors as more as the technicians and the experts that max out the efficiency and operation. So I'd like for us to just reevaluate that aspect of it. The other area that I have concern about is really in the environmental quality and public works area, and I have addressed this on numerous occasions to different members of management. First, let me say, I think Cheryl Taylor gets a 10 rating in my book. I think she's excellent. But I feel that we're putting too much responsibility, and we need to give her some additional support. And I just did a quick and dirty calculation here, but the fees from the sanitary service system, $49 million a year. The fees for water quality are $13 million a year. The landfill fee is $7 million a year. The solid waste fee is $48 million a year. That adds up to $117 million. That's revenue that is really controlled by that department. In addition to that, we're doing all these capital improvements for the EPA, requirements for improving our water quality. And I don't even know exactly what that amount is, but I'm going to guesstimate. It's maybe $30 million a year we're spending on capital improvements to ramp up our sanitary and storm surge systems. If you add those together, that's about $145 million a year. That's equivalent to more than half of the – this is outside of the general fund, but that one department is spending the equivalent of probably public safety and probably equivalent of half of our general fund revenue. And there's a lot of potential to save money, particularly in construction management, bidding. Because you look at – I mean, the issues you have to look at for the stormwater and sanitary sewer systems is you've got design, you've got bidding, quality control, the coordination of schedules. And I might add that I agree that lumping the streets and roads and engineering and the water, storm drainage and all that in that department is good because it's a bad idea to build a new road and then tear it out to put a storm sewer in. And so the coordination of that is very important. But then you have the completion of the project. You have inspection, payments, disputes with contractors. And then, of course, we're going to be dealing with the EPA and trying to meet with deadlines that will be on us, and there will be fines and penalties if we mess up. With that much money going through the program at $150 million, $145 million a year, it seems to me that the prudent thing to do would be to engage a construction management firm to help us in coordinating the construction and to have an owner's representative who would work hand and glove with Commissioner Taylor to represent the government in negotiations with the construction manager. So we would have the very best talent available to run these projects through. And I think just a 1% savings, for example, of all the money being spent in that department would be $1.5 million. So if we can improve efficiencies by 1%, I think we'd have the money to pay for that services. And I know I see the mayor walking in, and I have discussed this with the mayor, and I would say that he is an expert on construction management, what he does. And so he may have some additional feedback on this. I know he's been looking into this, so thank you, mayor. I knew I just couldn't stay away too long. Thank you all for letting me come up. Actually, Council Member Lane, it's a very good observation, insightful observation. If we dial back to a few months ago in an event called a campaign, in my plan I ask for and have called for an office for project management. And that's something that Cheryl and I have talked a lot about. And I think if we, forgive me, I kind of ran up the steps so I'm a little out of breath. But one of the things that, if we look at her role, Cheryl's background is a general manager. And one thing I've always felt is just a great tribute is that language, general manager. She came from a company that's recognized as one of the leading trainers in the country, really in the world in terms of management training, and that's Procter & Gamble. Their systems, their processes are just bulletproof. They teach people this kind of stuff, how to organize work, how to plan work. And my hope is that with Cheryl's leadership that she will be able to address some of these really systemic issues. Yeah, I see it the same way you do. You know, growing a company from $4 million when my father passed away to $500 million in revenues, the challenge of managing these number of projects is significant, the numbers of projects. So I have a lot of sympathy and have a lot of interest in creating good systems and placing people in the roles that are appropriate to do just exactly what you're saying, Council Member Lane, and that is to get the most out of our investment for our taxpayers. My hope is that, and Cheryl is, yeah, we have, we've had lots of conversations about this. She's a big advocate of the Office for Project Management so that we can sort through the functional relationships that we have in our government and the operational relationships to distinguish those. So I think the real challenge is, like, if she needs help, I have asked her. I've said, you know, if you need help, ask for it. You know, I think she's not timid, she's not shy, she's going to do that with me, and I know she will with you all as well. Well, Mayor, in case you missed my first comment, I complimented you and the CAO, because I think you have an excellent team. And, you know, my feeling is we need to, this is a major project for our community. It's going to be expensive, and I think we need to recruit the highest quality people we can. And I would prefer, rather than to have a department of government, I'd like to see it be outsourced because when this job is over, we're not going to need these people. And also we might be able to get people that have already had EPA experience. And you and I have had this conversation too, and Cheryl, I hope she's nodding her head. Charlie has as well. The model that you're describing, Council Member Lane, in terms of an effective program manager, construction manager, that's a role, whether it's outsourced or in-house, that we need. And becoming better contract managers is certainly a real objective of mine, as it is of many of you all's. I mean, you know some of your criticisms when you were the vice mayor that you were not happy with the bidding and some of the management of our construction. And I don't believe that in a few months since you've been in office you've been able to fix all those issues. And that's why I feel that my comment here, I'm not trying to be critical. No, it's okay. It's good. I'm trying to be very positive about this, but I feel like we do need to. Council Member Lane, excuse me, your time's up. Thank you. I want to say I appreciate that feedback and encouragement because having that present continuously is going to be important for us. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Do any other council members have questions? I will ask, too, if I could ask Commissioner Taylor. One of the proposals is to take the urban forester and the arborist and put them under environmental policy. Can you explain exactly, would they be doing exactly what they're doing now, or are you proposing changing their jobs? I think when I'm proposing, I can't speak for exactly what they do every day, but I'm proposing evolving that program. I think forestry, I don't know all of the background, but forestry was placed in with streets and roads because such a large part of that function is literally making sure that the trees are maintained, the street trees are maintained. They address anything where we get limbs and debris in the street impacting public safety and transportation. So there is a very strong operational component to that. And that is what we've focused on, you know, getting that up and running. But the folks that work in the forestry group over in Streets and Roads actually flex in and out of the rest of the system. So we have people in forestry, the first group of foresters that I met actually worked in snow removal. So they're part of that operating team. But I think because we've had to focus so heavily on operations, the program of urban forestry that I've seen in other cities has been developed at a much higher level. and it's no reflection on the individuals there. They all work hard. But I'd like to provide the resources and nurturing to grow that program into an urban forestry program that talks about everything from our urban canopy, our carbon credits, our green roof system. We have a problem with we have greenways everywhere, and we've all struggled with how we're going to maintain those. So I would evolve that under Susan's leadership. Now, Susan was the commissioner with me at the state level, Commissioner of Natural Resources, and as the commissioner, she managed the entire state's urban forestry program. So she has quite a bit of experience, and she's also got a great track record in developing and launching new programs like Keep Lexington Beautiful. We have our first energy program, and we have a way to go there, but, man, we've made a lot of progress in managing our energy, brownfields. downfields. So her area has been incubating and growing programs for the city. And if I can move those resources, those particular roles there, she can develop a program for us. I envision that group working directly with more directly with the tree board. Of course, everybody loves the Reforest the Bluegrass event. There's no reason we can't do a lot more of that with our citizens. We have a lot of people volunteering and just kind of grow that whole approach. So I think it will do better in that environment just programmatically. We can build that up. I think there are a lot of citizens who would welcome a beefed-up urban forestry program. So I appreciate that. And then I have one last question. I think this is for CAO Maloney. There are quite a few of us who remember the detailed discussions we had a few years ago when we moved building inspection out of public safety into public works. We tried to align it with engineering, planning, and those divisions that actually work with building inspection. So I want to know exactly why this proposal is being made to put it back in public safety. Well, you will be getting in the next couple of weeks some new ordinances to take zoning totally out of building inspection, and that will be coming to you. And the building inspection will no longer be in the meetings on planning like it used to be. What it does, it puts it back into public safety where it belongs, because once the building is finished and it goes through building inspection, it becomes more of a public safety issue because the building inspection then hands it over to the fire marshal, who's in the same department, so they have to work together. They will go out and inspect these buildings yearly. So that's the main reason. And by taking zoning out and leaving them planning, as a committee put together, we thought it would be a perfect fit, and this becomes a safety issue more than just being a in-the-process issue, And that saves a lot of time. So they won't need to work with, they won't be connected with planning and engineering like they were. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I know that you asked that Council make a motion to put this on the docket. I don't know whether we have a strong sentiment to do that. I suspect if we're going to do it, we need to do it before the budget is approved, correct? So is there a rush to do it tonight, or would council members want to think about this or do it tonight? It's up to you all. You want to wait and let this percolate? Vice Mayor? Yes, Council Member Lane. I think that we have to have a supermajority to approve a reorganization of the government. So I think if it were me, I would just, if it's not an urgent rush, we ought to just take our time, because I feel like this will be approved, but that way everybody could have any questions they've got that could answer them in that period of time. If there are other questions, we could answer. Is that okay with you all? Would you be happy with that if we did it later? Please. Later. That'd be fine. If you have any questions, just call me, and we'll be glad to answer. Okay, and you are correct. I believe it takes nine votes to do a reorganization. Okay, well, does that suit the council? Yes, I see lots of shaking of heads. And I would, from our point of view, I would just say I urge that level of consideration too. We want you all to have as adequate an understanding of the proposal as you need. In fact, Vice Mayor, the question that you were just asking about building inspection, poor Richard, I asked him the same thing about ten times. And, you know, some of these, as you all know, some of the answers are not proverbial, you know, black and white. But the feedback is worthy. You all have experience with these divisions, with our operations, and I'm not being solicitous when I say that. We do appreciate it, and it is valuable to us. So thanks a lot. Well, we appreciate your presentation and the fact that you could come down, Mayor. Come up. Excuse me. So if there's nothing else for this discussion, do I hear a motion to adjourn? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you.