# Budget COW-Links Report Outs - May 24, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 24, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2019 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2019?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-05-24 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,529 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 Lexington City Council met on May 24, 2011, under the presiding leadership of the Vice Mayor. During this session, the Council heard two informational presentations and received eight public comments. The meeting included one motion and vote. The agenda focused on two primary topics: a link report from the Department of Finance and Department of Social Services, and a budget link presentation involving the Environmental Quality and Public Works departments. Both items were presented for informational purposes rather than action items requiring votes. ## Attendance **Present:** Council Member Ford, Council Member Blues, Council Member Stennett, Council Member Lawless, Council Member Martin, Council Member Lane, Council Member Kaye, Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Farmer, Council Member Crosby, and Council Member McCord. **Absent:** None reported. **Late:** Mayor. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Adjourn** Council Member Lane moved to adjourn the meeting [timestamp: 1:21:34]. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. There were no abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several budget amendments and financial actions: **Affordable Housing Trust Fund Study** The Department of Social Services received a reallocation of $100,000 from the mayor's proposed $250,000 for an affordable housing trust fund study. **Senior Citizens Program** Charles Young Community Center was allocated $50,000 for a satellite senior citizens program. **Youth Services Administration** The Department of Social Services received $33,500 to fund an administrative specialist senior position to support the director of youth services. **Traffic Signage** An external contractor was added to the budget with $65,000 for traffic signage work. **Greenway Maintenance** Parks and Recreation received $30,000 reallocated from the engineering budget for greenway maintenance. **Loan-a-Box Program Fee Increase** A potential fee increase for the City of Lexington's loan-a-box program was discussed, with the fee proposed to increase from $38 to $75 to generate $50,000 in additional income. **Dead Animal Pickup Fee** A proposed $45 fee per dead animal pickup was presented to recover $66,000 in unreimbursed costs previously borne by veterinary offices. **Littering Law Enforcement** Potential revenue of $1,000,000 was identified from enforcing littering laws against citizens. ## Public Comment Council members raised several concerns during the meeting, focusing primarily on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and related budget matters. **Affordable Housing Trust Fund** Council Member Blues [0:15:48] expressed concern about commissioning an additional $100,000 study, questioning whether the expense was necessary given that previous work had already been completed on the topic. Council Member Stennett [0:19:55] asked about the status of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund commission and task force, noting that the funding source for the initiative remained unresolved. Council Member Martin [0:30:49] advocated for immediate action on the fund, proposing a $2 million bond to jumpstart it. Martin argued that waiting for improved financial conditions would be unrealistic. Council Member Lane [0:32:25] raised concerns about spending $100,000 on a study during a period of tight budgeting, and questioned the long-term financial impact of adding new personnel to the city payroll. Council Member Kaye [0:34:41] stressed that the council should commit to a tax increase before spending additional funds on studies, and emphasized the importance of taking quick action on the matter. **Other Budget Items** Council Member Ellinger [0:43:04] suggested allocating $120,000 from unallocated capital funds toward Charles Young Center renovations to make the facility inhabitable by January. Council Member Lawless [0:47:16] asked about the legal basis for paying out $4 million in sick leave checks and whether alternative credit mechanisms could be used instead. Council Member Farmer [0:55:50] presented recommendations from the Environmental Quality and Public Works committee, including restoring funding for Valley View Ferry, shifting greenway maintenance responsibilities to Parks and Recreation, and increasing fees for city services. ## Appointments Vice Mayor Gordon was appointed to the Task Force on Senior Citizen Center. ## Contested Items The May 24, 2011 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members. **Affordable Housing Trust Fund Study** Council members were divided on whether to allocate $100,000 for a study of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The split centered on the necessity of additional research when prior studies had already been conducted. Some council members argued for immediate action to address affordable housing needs, while others cautioned against the expenditure given the city's tight budget constraints at that time. **Charles Young Center Satellite Program** A heated discussion arose regarding funding for a satellite senior program at Charles Young Center. Council members debated the appropriateness of committing resources to this program while a task force was still in the process of evaluating redevelopment plans for the center. Concerns were raised about spending money before the task force's final recommendations were available, which could potentially conflict with or preempt the broader redevelopment strategy. **Sick Leave Payout** A procedural dispute emerged over the city's legal obligations regarding approximately $4 million in accumulated sick leave. Council members questioned whether the city could legally avoid paying out these checks or alternatively credit them toward employee retirement benefits. The disagreement prompted a request for legal analysis to clarify the city's options and obligations in handling this liability. ## Department of Finance and Department of Social Services Link Report Council Member Ford presented recommendations from the Finance and Social Services Link during this agenda item. **Recommendations Presented** The presentation included the following budget proposals: - A $33,500 reduction in the social services budget - Reallocation of $100,000 for an affordable housing trust fund study - $50,000 in funding for a senior citizens satellite program - Funding for an administrative specialist position for youth services **Department Status** Council Member Ford described the Department of Social Services as undergoing significant organizational changes, including major downsizing and new leadership. **Outcome** This item was presented for informational purposes. ## Environmental Quality and Public Works Budget Link Council Member Farmer presented recommendations from the Environmental Quality and Public Works Link during this agenda item [timestamp: 0:55:50]. The presentation included several budget proposals: - **Valley View Ferry funding restoration** – Recommendations to restore funding for this service - **Greenway maintenance shift** – Proposal to shift $30,000 in funding for greenway maintenance to Parks and Recreation - **Traffic signage allocation** – Addition of $65,000 for traffic signage - **Revenue exploration** – Recommendations to explore revenue opportunities through fee increases and enforcement The item was presented for informational purposes. No additional concerns or debate details were documented in the available materials. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript I've been informed the mayor's late items will occur on June 7th, along with the first review of the recommendations. And then the only other change is that June 14th at 1 o'clock, we will have a special council meeting right before the Economic Development Committee, and that special council meeting will be to ratify the budget and place it on the docket. So those are the changes which are in your current schedule. Okay. Now, we'll go ahead and hear from Finance and Social Services. And this is Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And good evening to members of the Council. We are reporting out the link for the Department of Finance and the Department of Department of Social Services. I had the honor to serve on this link with Councilmember Beard as well as Councilmember Ellinger and we met on April 21st and May 12th. In his absence, Councilmember Beard is not here, but I do want to thank him for his leadership as the chair of our link this budget season. You have the report out of our link and our recommendations, but I would like to start with just a little bit of a little background about these two departments. And I will start with the Department of Social Services. It is led by our commissioner, Commissioner Beth Mills, and her department has three divisions, the Division of Adult and Tenant Services, Division of Family Services, and Division of Youth Services. And in summary, I think what we learned in this link is that this department is a department that is undergoing a revamp. Two of the three division directors will be new to their divisions, having just recently been hired here in fiscal year 2011, and those are the family service director and the youth service director. The mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 for social services is $6,734,877. This represents only 2.6% of the entire general fund proposed budget for fiscal year 2012. This number, approximately $6.7 million, also reflects a reduction of 11.5% from just fiscal year 2011. The trends in this Department of Social Services, the reason I categorize it as a revamp, is because we have seen major shifts and downsizing in this department. If we look back to fiscal year 2007, the budget for Department of Social Services was $12.3 million, and it had 209 full-time employees. What's proposed for fiscal year 2012 is just about 50% of that prior year number, $6.7 million budget again, and 131 full-time employees. The premier's proposed budget calls for layoffs of five employees in the Department of Social Services, primarily associated with a social service pilot program that was started just a few years ago. The priority is recognized through our discussions with Commissioner Mills and her staff were a focus on senior citizens and the programs that the government provides for this population of our community, and also a focus on youth services. Our link report reduces the mayor's proposed budget for this department by $33,500, leaving it with a budget of $6,701,377. So that's the summary of the Department of Social Services. I'm going to turn our attention to the Department of Finance, and I will, in summary, present the recommendations of our links that you guys have in your packet. Our finance commissioner is Commissioner Jane Driscoll. She has four divisions, the Division of Accounting, Central Purchasing, Budgeting, and Revenue. The fiscal year 2012 budget has $8,965,376, just at $9 million. This represents a 9.8% increase from fiscal year 11. But the majority of the divisions, each of the divisions in the finance department has realized a cut. The explanation of the increase in this department is attributable to just about one line item, and that is an increase in the police and fire pension administration for our retirees, which is housed and administered in the finance department. That increase was $988,790. The link report provides no change as we find that this department is operating just like all other departments and divisions within government, which is through leaner times. So that's the summary of the Department of Finance. And to the Department of Finance credit, we understand that they have a challenge of starting in January and jumping right into the budget in dealing with the structural imbalances that they're presenting. So I think they have expressed looking forward to fiscal year 13, which they'll have a full year under their belts to work with. Turning our attention to the recommendation in closing, finance is unchanged, but the recommended changes for social services include the mayor's proposed budget appropriated $250,000 in professional services for affordable housing. We recommend that $100,000 of that original allocation remain in social services budget and be dedicated to an affordable housing trust fund study that I can describe a little bit later. We also recommend that $50,000 address the senior citizens' need as expressed by the department. And so we have allocated $50,000, or recommend allocating $50,000 for a satellite senior citizens program to be housed at the Charles Young Community Center. This plan incorporates starting in January of 2012. So that is a half year if the plans take us that way and then a part-time social worker to house that operation. And then also with the new director in the Division of Youth Services. It was recognized and brought to our attention that that director does not have the administrative support that would allow she to hit the ground running, if you will. So we recommend funding an administrative specialist senior position to support the director of youth services. That leaves a balance of $33,500 that will return to the general fund. Lastly, the recommendation of the link is that we ask Vice Mayor Gordon to consider to appoint a task force to look for the need for a new senior citizen center. Our current center, as expressed, and we all know it to be true, probably does not address the full needs of our seniors community as it is now located at Nicholasville Road, and I believe that to be alumni. So that concludes our link report. I'd be glad to answer any questions from Councilmembers present. Thank you very much, Councilmember Ford. While Councilmembers log in, I'll ask a couple of questions. And my first one is for Mr. Maloney. Mr. Maloney, could I ask you a question, please? Sure. It's getting to be a long day, isn't it? Oh, goodness. One of the LINC's recommendations is to ask for a task force to look at a new senior citizen center. And so I'm aware that the administration is already looking into that issue. So can you give us a general update or without? Well, we've already had a few meetings with some nonprofits that are interested in possibly relocating there. But right now that's kind of iffy right now. But we think there's potential with the property that we have now at University of Kentucky that we may be able to sell that and then put a committee together to look for another location. or we may have our own location here that we have some buildings here that we might be able to place it in there. But I think we want to put a task force together because, as you know, they're supposed to double in the next 20 years senior citizens. And if you go look at the other surrounding counties, they've been more aggressive in their senior citizen centers than we have. And for the city our size, I think we have not been up to our potential, and I think this is a golden opportunity. We do have land within a prime location that we could possibly make some revenue off of it. And whatever we do, we make sure it's a state-of-the-art senior citizen because I think we've gone a long time and not improved that area, so I think it's an opportunity here. So could you and I work together to put that task force together then? And that might fulfill that request. I knew that the administration had been working on it. And then my other question is, I was a little bit curious. Council Member Ford, we do have the task force ongoing for the Charles Young Center. And so I wondered about the recommendation to allocate money for a new program at the Charles Young Center when the task force is still operating, whether that might be something we could put off until your task force comes up with its recommendations. And thank you, Vice Mayor, in addressing that. The task force is still yet meeting, and we have a charge to bring back a recommendation to the council in August, and we feel confident that we'll be close to meeting that deadline. During some of our work thus far, The task force has really worked hard to look at what has been identified in the East End Small Area Plan and the Charles Young Feasibility Report to kind of zero in on preferred uses to lead to the redevelopment of that area. Senior citizens rose to the top. It was one of the top five recommendations of the task force. Recreational, community, youth, and teen activities. Consolidated represents three of those five. Workforce development and job training is the fourth, and then again coming back to senior citizens. So we see this as an opportunity not to circumvent the work that the task force is doing, but if at the conclusion of our work, senior citizens is one of the two, three, four, or multiple uses of the facility, we thought that planning out in this fiscal year 12 budget might offer an opportunity to the government, to the task force into that East End neighborhood to go forth. It's important to note that the $50,000, $35,000 of it represents kind of set up costs, furnishings and those kind of materials to support senior activities as would be recommended by social services. 15,000. Only 15,000 represents the part-time wages of a social worker working 20 hours. And the center proposed it wouldn't and cannot by this budget open before January. And then that position, if funded and we go with that plan, wouldn't start its work until November or so in anticipation of opening. So we put it in there as a planning opportunity in this fiscal year budget. We would hate to have it started, have our work done, but not be able to respond because the fiscal year has passed us. Okay. And then just in the last couple seconds, I'll ask my last question. How did the link come to changing the $250,000 for affordable housing trust fund to reallocating it? What were some of the discussions around that? Thank you. And I will attempt to answer that question as well. The $250,000 was proposed in the mayor's budget, and in my discussion with the mayor, and also I expressed this during the link process, is that I recommended that these funds, more importantly, provide for a study of how we would implement a task, excuse me, too many acronyms, a trust fund, if we went that way. And if I could, Vice Mayor, just in response, we would think that that implementation of feasibility study would do perhaps four things, and I'll quickly provide background. And this background has just been in our workings with the bill coalition and kind of trying to figure out how we can keep the momentum with the trust fund going, which dates back to 2008. But such a study, and these are just my thoughts that I've shared with the administration in the length, would be to quantify the administrative costs of operating a trust fund in Lexington. Two would be to identify and distinguish the practical application of increased housing affordability by means of trust fund investment. Number three would be to examine the compliance and regulatory costs of ensuring the trust fund performance and accountability. And lastly, to initiate a public awareness and education campaign to let the citizens of Fayette County know what a trust fund is. Those are just some of the thoughts that we thought that this investment towards that study could provide for us. But recognizably so, Vice Mayor, it's an estimate. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to follow up a little bit on the proposal to divide up the $250,000 in the Mayor's budget toward an affordable housing trust fund in different ways. We have had an Affordable Housing Trust Fund commission long, thorough, and detailed study. We had also an Affordable Housing Trust Fund task force, which has come forward with its recommendations. to the extent of proposing a way to fund the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. So I have a question about the need to study the matter further at an additional expense of $100,000. I would certainly want us to review that because I'm worried about repeating what has gone before. So I would have, I think, some reservations at this point about that use of the money. it would be, I think, worthy of more discussion of how we can actually move affordable housing forward as opposed to continuing the study of it. Also, I do have a question for Jamashid, I guess, about the building itself, the Charles Young Center. Is that ready for, you know, for occupancy and functions and so forth? A few weeks back, we did the environmental assessment of the facility. We found some asbestos, as we have suspected, as well as some lead. And I believe we're getting very close to completing all the abatement activities there. The request from CM Ford, we did a walkthrough in regard to what some of the current deficiencies are, in regard to bringing things back up to code where they need to be for the billing as is. I think the tag was close to about $120,000, $130,000. Some of that had to do with upgrading some of the windows, some roof issues, and a few odds and ends in terms of flooring. painting, just odds and ends, nothing major, but it adds up just because of the size of the building. So we're talking about $100,000 or $120,000 to make the building ready for occupancy. Yes. Where would that money come from? Well, we did not identify the source. We were requested to provide a cost breakdown on what would it cost to take care of those issues. So in order to initiate a program in the building and to hire new staff, we have to find $100,000 plus to make the building itself ready. One of the main items associated with $120,000 is the ADA issues. The building does not meet the basic requirements of ADA. So we will have to construct a ramp up front, the building. we're also going to have to construct about four parking spaces adjacent to the building that would take care of the handicapped parking as well as the service parking. So those are some of the items that were included in that $120,000. Okay. Thank you very much. That is helpful. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That answers my questions and sort of increases my reservations. Council Member Stennett. Are we up? Okay. I had some of the same concerns that Council Member Blue's had about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I guess my question is, don't we, the Council Committee, Council Member Blue, I know Council Member Henson is the chair. How close are you to reporting out on the affordable housing issue? Well, the real issue now is how to fund it. And you remember when we commissioned John Ferris' firm to give us some numbers on what it would cost the taxpayers if we added, let's say, three-quarters of a percent or a percent to the insurance premium tax. So does that mean another year or two? Well, it does. Okay. We have identified a funding source. The question is whether in the current economic times and given the, you know, the burdens on our economy and our taxpayers, whether this is the time to move forward with such a proposal. I just want to make sure that you weren't reporting out a month. I think, Council Member Ford, you can clarify this for us. I think the money would be more to, though, not necessarily the funding source, but how to implement and actually get the job done once we identified a funding source. That's correct, Council Member Sennett and Council Member Blues. And thank you for allowing me to kind of jump back in. This study would be just to do that. how will we turn the key if and when the council decides on whatever funding source to dedicate to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I think that just some benchmark dates, just for clarity. In September 2008, Mayor Newberry appointed the 50-member commission report, and we followed up in the fall of 2009 when Vice Mayor Gray appointed the council task force, and Council Member Henson leads that charge for us now. And then the fall, excuse me, the summer of 2010, that council task force called for the economic impact study, which was presented to us in March. So 08, 09, 2010, every year we have continued to move forward. And that economic impact study now is at Economic and Community Development Committee to help us kind of validate and examine the report. That economic impact study indicated that the investment in the trust fund not only would address our housing needs, but it would have positive economic impact for the community at large. But we're still studying the funding source. I think this study would be, Council Member Senate and Council Members, that once we fund it, assuming that we do fund it, how do we administer it? That original commission report in the fall of 08 simply stated that the administrative agent, and I had the opportunity to co-chair that committee, called for a division of government to administer the trust fund at roughly a 5% overhead cost. That may or may not be sufficient. And so this study would help us kind of examine what other communities have done. We've had experts come before us, but we really want to zero in on what it takes. Commissioner Driscoll and I have had this conversation in wrapping up, Council Member Stenet, is that Louisville has a trust fund, never had a dedicated public funding source, was afforded a $1 million capitalized by $1 million. they never could get off the base because I would contend that they never had such a plan for how they would spend it. So this would just take us a step further. It doesn't obligate us, but I think it would kind of enhance this conversation we have that we're having about the funding source. And we could have more conversation on the timing of it. I think it needs to be done. I'm just not sure the exact timing of when we should actually do that. My next question is for John M. Shea. On the Senior Citizen Center, we're taking previous bond proceeds and we're reallocating some of them to remodeling the current Senior Citizen Center. What do those entail? It's like $237,000. That must have been a few years ago. Are we doing right? No, this is current year. This is current year? We're taking bonds we've already sowed and putting into a remodel of the current Senior Center. I'm trying to figure out why we would do that and what the precedent is for that $237,000. That's not an item that we would request in, but Jane might be able to clarify that. Does your area oversee the maintenance of the building and everything? Yes, the maintenance, yes. Okay. Go ahead. I mean, answer because I'm kind of confused now. The person that oversees the maintenance of that facility doesn't know about the money? Well, actually, those were dollars that were in that project. We only took a portion of those dollars to dedicate towards that other. I don't have that chart with me, but the number you referred to are the dollars remaining in the original project. And we had talked about, obviously, the need moving forward to look at a new center and that there were some improvements that needed to be made immediately. And so we left a portion of those funds for the current space. I know how we left them, but why? I mean, we're talking about trying to build a new center. What justifies spending a quarter of a million dollars right now? Well, again, we wanted to leave those dollars as we progressed through looking at it. It's just a bookmark. There's no plan to spend it or how to spend it. It's just a placeholder. Someone else. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. We originally had some funding, and I don't know how much it was, to do the design phase. Sure. And it went up to the second floor. And the problem is that when they came back with that recommendation, over the last few years, we don't think it's big enough for the space that we need for the senior citizen. So we didn't want to spend all that money there. there, so this is an opportunity for us to take this remaining money and maybe either if we decide to go with the task force, either we have to build, we'll build there, or if we have to, we can take it and invest in another piece of property or property we already have. Okay, so there is no plan to spend it. There's no HVAC system we've got to replace. There's no painting. I mean, it's a placeholder for maybe we may need it. There is plans. If we decide not to go forward, they need this money to improve what they have right now. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, which is this and senior citizens. I just don't want to, if we've got a chance to do this task force real quick and get on track, I just don't want to throw good money away when we've got an opportunity to build or go another better place. So that's why there is money. There is what needs to be replaced there. There's a lot of things that need to be replaced with the $200. Okay, so there's no direct plants, more seed money for the future. And I would be in agreement we do need a new center. I mean, I'm not sure putting dollars into the current one is going to get us where we really want to be. And I just want to really make sure, though, these are bond proceeds that we've already bonded, and we're just reallocating as a placeholder. And, you know, there may be other areas of this budget we can use that in if they're not going to use them this year. Respectfully, we met as a staff to look at our current facility, understanding that we have tremendous amounts of needs. And it appears that one of our partnering agencies may be vacating, which is going to allow us considerable additional space, nearly 2,500 square feet, which then some additional funds would help us to offer this building a facelift, understanding that we may not be in a position, even with a task force, to build a new site or to have the funds available, instead a stopgap to bring us up a little higher to be able to meet the growing needs of our seniors today. because the needs of 10,000 persons are turning 65 years or older every day. And so our needs are huge, and we do have a pretty significant plan on making improvements. But like you, should we throw good money to bad? I don't know what the answer is because the center is not quite adequate, though we have this opportunity to gain more of our space if one of these partners does, in fact, move out. Okay. Again, I just want to make sure there's no immediate emergency need this money is going to be used for. I don't have any problem earmarking it for the Senior Citizen Center, but in a budget like this, we want to make sure every dollar is going to be spent in FY12, make sure we're going to use it on something we really have to have, especially when we're laying people off. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Christy. Councilmember Lawless. I think this has mostly been addressed by Councilmember Ford, But I think it is critical, the study that he's talking about on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, if we don't have a clear roadmap, whether it be a quasi-governmental agency that oversees it and what the goals of affordable housing are and how it's going to be administered, we really can't move forward without that kind of plan. And so that was a recommendation of the task force was the next step being an implementation plan. And we likened it to, you know, the PDR plan program that has been so well executed. So I think it is a really essential part of that whole affordable housing, looking at affordable housing. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I, too, I guess have a couple of thoughts about the affordable housing trust fund. This is something that I've been cautious about because I've been concerned about the city's finances and because I've wanted us to be on more secure financial footing before stepping into an affordable housing trust fund. notwithstanding that I'm actually losing faith that we are going to be able to actually have the political fortitude to avoid the serious financial consequences that I think are ahead and because of that, because I think we're going to head there anyway I think that I'm supportive now of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund it's not like we can really wait until we get on better financial footing It's we're 20 years out from better financial footing. And so, you know, I too would like to see the implementation plan, but I'd also like to see us put some real money and get this thing jump started. I think some sort of a $2 million bond or some upfront way to get this thing started so that we're just not continuing to talk about it council year after council year after council year. I think that a lot of folks have put hard work into it that we've asked them to put into it. And I think that there's, frankly, no better time than now to get it started. So I hope that I support still funding a business plan. I don't know whether $100,000 is needed to do that or not, but certainly we need to have an idea about how this is going to operate. I would have thought that that would be one of the things that the task force was looking at. But clearly we want it to be successful. But I think it's time to fund it. It's not like it's going to get better next year. So I hope my fellow council members will consider that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Well, the first start I'm having is originally was $250,000. That's a quarter of a million dollars. I want to sort of emphasize that. And we're spending that this year when we're having a very tight budget. Now, I realize now the LINCS has recommended bringing it down to $100,000 for the study, but at the same time they're adding some job positions. And then I have a concern there because we need to have a structurally balanced budget. And to take one-time money that was allocated for a study and then to go out and hire two or three full or part-time people, then they're an ongoing cost year after year after year, and that's obviously not going to be good for our long-term budgetary issues, and our short-term and long-term budget issues are very tight. The other issue about the Affordable Housing Trust Fund study is that essentially means if we're going to do that, we're going to have to pass a new tax that the citizens of Fayette County will have to pay. It could be an ad valorem tax on housing. I think it could be a tax on your homeowner's insurance policy, but there's going to be some tax paid somewhere. And, you know, it's been my feeling in talking with other council members. I haven't done an official poll on this, but I don't feel like there's broad-based support to have a tax increase to pay for that. So, you know, I question whether we should, you know, even spend the $100,000. And as Council Member Blue said, and I agree, there's already been a couple of studies that have come before Council, and we did not elect to move forward with that. So I would just ask us to be careful in consideration of the cost for the study and for adding the new personnel onto the long-term payroll for the government. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to speak to the affordable housing question. I think there's an issue of timing. There is a report that's been sent to the Economic Development and Community Development Committee. I would hope that they would act on that quickly because it seems to me that there is a threshold question, and that is does the Council have the interest and the will to impose a tax now on its citizens? I'm supportive of that, but I'd like to know before spending any more money for the study what the answer to that question is. I think Council Member Martin put it very well. This is an item that's been deferred and delayed. It is something that is, I think, very important for this community, and waiting for better times is, not to overstate it, but it may be a fool's errand. So I'm interested in having the council really commit to quick action out of that committee, getting an answer to the question of whether, in fact, people are willing to step up and fund this important need. And if so, I think we do need money in the budget. I don't know if it needs to be $100,000, but we do need money in the budget to determine a feasible structure for that trust fund. I would add one other thing. I think there is no short-term fix for this problem. Council Member Ford spoke to Louisville's situation where they allocated money. They did not have a long-term plan that seemed feasible. That money's gone, and I don't know how much impact they got for it. It will take a while to implement a true program that will benefit the low and moderate income members of this community in terms of housing. If we're not committed to a goodly number of years and a sustainable source of funds, I think would be not wise to throw a little bit of money at it. Thank you. Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate all the comments and discussion that we've had in response to our link presentation. I wanted to just kind of wrap up and, if to benefit of the council, kind of provide some response, as you consider, during the budgetary process. As I get ready, I would like to ask for Commissioner Mills and if Krista, Ms. Stamball, would join you as well. I think that, again, working with Council Member Beard and working with Council Member Ellinger was very helpful to me through my first link process. But I think what we have provided for the council's consideration, each of our recommendations addresses the social services needs. We think that we have been responsive in working with the administration and our leaders in addressing the needs that they have expressed. And I think that these needs are consistent with what council sees for our community. Focusing on social services, again, even with the recommendations we have, their budget at $6.7 million is still only 2.6 of the entire general fund. So I think and I would urge us to still consider, however the deliberations may play out, that this department needs every bit of that 2.6% of the general fund. And I think that these programs can help. Two last quick points. In regards to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, I provided that timeline, and we're all aware of it, and I understand, so I'm not trying to be redundant. But it started with an activity of 50 senior citizens. Excuse me. Got my issues mixed up. The trust fund started in the fall of 2008 with a 50-member task force, business and community leaders, who dedicated their summer at no pay to participate in this process, and we've returned the report very quickly. In sum, what I'm saying is that the only monetary cost to this government thus far over the three years has been the $25,000 we put forth for an economic impact study. And even of that money, $9,000 or $10,000 or so came from the private sector. government only put up about 15,000 that we found in a dormant grant account. So of all the successes and discovery we've had thus far, it's been at a very minimal amount. So the investment to study the trust fund will be worth its while, I believe. And then let's not forget that this, as Council Member Martin mentioned, this economic impact study of the trust fund will generate dollars. It's going to 6 to 1, 8 to 1 on the investment that we heard, but we'll continue to study that later. I ask our social service leaders to come forward to conclude our link report talking about the Senior Citizen Center. While we hope successful in the task force being created to study the seniors, I think that our link is supportive of having the best Senior Citizen Center we can have. but the immediate need for fiscal 12 still realize that our seniors are underserved. This proposal for a satellite, I think, will address that. Talk to us about, which was a discovery for me, that a satellite does not hurt or hinder our movement towards a consolidated Grand Orr Center. Thank you, Council Member Ford and the rest of Council Members for listening to us. Seniors are, when we came to our link, the affordable housing was put in our budget because we work with the people that are most impacted by affordable housing. It was the desire of the mayor to put some money towards that issue. There was not real detailed plans, but we were asked what our priorities were apart from affordable housing, and seniors rose to the top. And one of the questions was, is the plan to build a new center or to do satellite services? And my answer is either one of them is going to cost a lot of money. We don't have the funds right now to build that new center in absence of selling the one that we already have. If you want to do satellite services, you're going to have to hire staff. Either way, the devil's in the details because Council Member Ford asked, if we wanted to do a program currently at Charles Young, how much staff could you give? And I said probably four hours a week. We have two social workers and one manager running our senior center, and in the month of April we had over 3,000 units of service as measured by our Title III grant. So we're at capacity. The thing we were thinking about is if you're going to do this incrementally, first of all, you would need to rehab the center we currently have. There's more office space than activity space. It's seedy looking just from overuse if you've been out there recently. And the other thing was, if you do satellite services, people get the idea of coming to a senior citizen center. We have a service at the Black and Williams Center with Elder Crafters. There's currently a nutrition site over at the Dunbar Center. If we open some satellite centers in other neighborhoods, then when we do build a new senior citizen center, people are already in the model of what senior citizens are. We could move them from there to the new center. That was kind of what we did when we opened the center originally. We moved some people from some mill sites at Carver and Kenwick. So it is a stopgap measure to do a senior citizens program. But if you want to do satellite services in all reality, neither we nor even the folks at Parks and Recreation have the staff to do that at this time. So that's why we mentioned it. The other priority, I'll just go ahead and talk about the youth services. Youth and family services were collapsed as part of the pilot reorganization. And when we decided to have the two divisions, we realized we didn't have clerical support for a division director. So all we said to our link was these are our current most priorities, and that's how we arrived at using affordable housing. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Council Member Ellinger has a question. I'm not sure if I have a question, just some comments. And I want to thank Council Member Ford for chairing this link since Mr. Beard was not available to. and I think he's done an excellent job in that. And one of the issues I want to bring up is if we do put the money towards the Charles Young Center for a part-time employee, I guess that would start in the second half of the fiscal year, and something came light to me is the money that's got to be made to make the center inhabitable. And we do have, as my understanding, I asked the Commissioner Driscoll, I think there was a million dollars in capital money that hasn't been allocated. So we could put $120,000 of that into the Charles Young Center to start that. And, Yanshi, could you tell me how long it would take if we did put that money towards that? Would that be ready by January then? Oh, definitely, yes. Okay. So if we decided that the council wanted to put the $120 of the million of the capital money towards that center, then we would be ready so we could then have somebody there. So that would alleviate that issue. So we would be ready for that. And then the other one, I guess if you could just talk about the need for the one recommendation we made for the administrative help, because we do have the two new directors, but we didn't have the. No. What happened when they collapsed family and youth services, they put all the administrative duties for those divisions under one person and another person in the family care center. There was also a person that was detailed to adult services because they have a HOPE 6 grant. They are getting ready to start a payee program, which I hope, to help indigent folks with their funds. Commissioner Driscoll is helping us with that. So they took the extra clerical support, and it wasn't until we decided we needed a youth services director that we realized we don't have clerical support for the youth services director. So if it's not funded, we would take back someone from the person that we moved over to adult services, but that would leave one person doing those two people's jobs. But that's the way we've been operating since 07, sort of. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, I had a question or two. In the packet for the link on page 16 at the bottom, it talks about certification and licensure fees, and this is a very small amount of money, but do we currently pay for the social work licenses? Yes, ma'am, we have. How long has that been a custom that we pay for them? Last year we started doing that. The first year? Yes, ma'am. I wondered about that. Many of us who have to have professional licenses every year pay for them, and then you can have that as a business expense on your taxes. So what was the thinking when we started paying for those? I'm the training coordinator for the department, and we pay for our child care workers to continue their certification. It's 15 continuing education hours that they must obtain and keep. And so in being fair throughout our department, for the jobs who require licensure for social workers as part of their job duty, the decision was made to pay for their licensure. And that was just made last? And that was just made? This is the second? This is not even, we've not even done it for an entire calendar year. The current budget is the first year we've paid for those licenses. That's correct. Except for the child care. That's been going on for some time. Okay. And then my other question was on page 20 of the budget. And this may not exactly be a question for you because you were recommending in number 7 on page 20 things the council could do government-wide to save money. So it might be a question for either budgeting or maybe the commissioner. I want to ask about the sick check. Would that be a commissioner question or a budgeting question? Or both of you? We'll take both of you. Because this, to me, unlike the social work licenses, this, I believe, is a huge number, is it not? I believe it's north of $4 million government-wide. So can you tell me a little bit about the, quote, sick check, what the rules are, and when people get paid for sick leave? Well, I would defer to Leslie Jarvis if she was here. In broad terms, for various levels, non-collective bargaining, I believe it's 600 hours, and police and fire have a higher amount according to their accrual rules. But basically when you accrue on an annual basis above and beyond those caps. So to give an example, someone like me, if at the end of the year I had 700 hours and my cap was 600, I'd be paid out for the 100 hours, the incremental difference between that, and it's in the form of a check. I believe it's the second pay period in the month of January is when those checks come out. There is some legal aspects associated with that. that law needs to apply on. Some of them are memorialized in collective bargaining agreements. Others are not. But it is a large amount of money. So tell me again about the law. We're not, are we, right now I'm talking about non-collective bargaining numbers on this. But what does the law, in terms of are we required to pay that out, or could we investigate creative ways to credit our employees? I think there's some, I think if I recall, the health department credits it toward retirement credit and other things like that. Are we limited by law? I am not an attorney. I will first say that. But we did ask the same questions, Vice Mayor, And there was a legal analysis done by the law department regarding the merger time that the inviolable contract issue came into play about how the statutes were written and the employee benefit level. So, again, there is a legal analysis, and we can get someone from law to come down, see if someone could come address that for you. But I know that was an issue. And then as Ryan stated, there's some collective bargaining language as well. Okay. I would think we would want to investigate whether there's something else. You said it's $4 million plus in the fiscal year 12 budget. Is it? Yes. Yes. So if you could ask, and they don't have to come right now for my sake, but I think it would be a benefit for us all to hear what the law is that limits us and makes us pay that out because it's a huge number. And there might be other creative ways that we can credit the employees for that, And I don't know what all they are. And again, it was one of the first questions we asked about. So can you pass that request, please? Yes, we will. Okay. Thank you. And next is Council Member Lawless. Yes, I had a question about the social work license. Are you talking about their fee every three years to? Every three years, it's $75 for our employees that have a bachelor's level degree, and it's $125 for our employees that have a master's level degree. And we have offset that cost for our employees. Social workers don't earn a lot of money, and the license fees are minimal. We license maybe six a year. Do you all provide or pay for any CEU? We do. Most of those we have done in-house. We have applied for a license with the Kentucky Social Work Board and have found local providers. And then for our ethics training, we do pay a small amount for that. So we do provide CEUs for our social workers as well. There are a couple of very good websites for online CEUs that I'll be glad to share with you. Would appreciate that, Council Member. Okay. Glenda, did you come in to answer the question about sick leave? Thank you, Commissioner. Did you hear the question that came up? It was in the elevator, sorry. What I was asking was, Mr. Barrow said we have $4 million plus in the budget for sick leave payouts. and I wanted to know if there are legal, and I'm right now kind of talking not about collective bargaining, sick leave. Are there legal parameters we have to follow and what are they, or can we look at other ways to credit sick leave to our employees? Can we credit it in retirement credit like they do at the health department, or can we do other credit? The issue with crediting, you know, you still would have to pay the money somewhere. You know, we've had the question before about can we pay the money into a person's retirement account or give them credit for retirement, but you would still have to put the money into a retirement account. So that doesn't really help us because you're still spending the money. In terms of whether or not we could take away the sick check, the short answer to that is no. for any current employee because of the inviolable contract. For future employees, if we wanted to pass an ordinance that said we were doing away with sick checks for any future employees, we could do that. And for those of you who have been here for a while, it's similar to what we did with longevity pay. At some point we took that away for employees who started after a certain date, but for employees who had already been here because of that contract, we weren't able to take that away from them. That's the employment contract. And I've actually written a memo about this, and if you would like that, I can send it to you all so that you can see the legal analysis that we've gone through concerning the sick checks and anything that was in the original ordinance that was passed in 1978. Okay. I think that would be helpful if you don't mind to provide that. And then have we ever gone so far as to craft some legislation for future employees since we're not really hiring very much right now? Well, we looked at it, but you have to remember, say we pass an ordinance today that says going forward there won't be any sick checks, it would take at least six years for that to ever come into play because the employee would have to start, then they would have to build up their sick leave to get over the 600 hours then not to have it. So because it's not an immediate savings, we've never brought that forward to the council. But if you all would like to see that, I'll be happy to forward you that ordinance change. Okay. I appreciate that. And then my time is out. Okay. And so I guess because current employees can't, we can't take away the sick check, we also cannot cap it and then put the extra in a bank for other employees to use when they're sick. That's different. Remember, we had at one point something called that sick leave bank program, and I think that's still a current ordinance, but the way it was set up, employees didn't really use it. You know, like with the state, it allows you to give your sick time to certain individuals, but our program wasn't set up that way, and so employees didn't really use it. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Ford, thank you for your report. And we'll move along to Council Member Farmer, who has the Environmental Quality and Public Works Budget Link. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The link consisted of myself, Dr. Blues, and Jay McCord. And in the audience today, the commissioner and all the directors. So if we have any questions and time for follow-up, they're all here to our available for commentary. The next page just shows when we met and who all was present, coming, and going. I'm just going to jump right to our link recommendations, which are on the third page. The Department of Environmental Equality and Public Works Administrative Office. The link is recommending that we add back to the fiscal year 12 budget the component figures for a contractual expense in vehicular repairs and maintenance for the Valley View Ferry. As I alluded to in my earlier comments and as followed up later in this report, we don't want to pull out on our Jessamine and our Madison County partners. We'd like to make a plan to have a better partnership with them and with the state, for that matter, because as was represented to us in the link, there are maintenance issues. There are other issues that go along with having the Valley View Ferry, but there are other people who are interested in having it open for connectivity reasons as well as for historical reasons. But for this year, much in the same way as we're keeping the pools and hopefully Meadowbrook Golf Course open, we're adding the money back to keep it open or to continue our partnership this year. The link did not have any recommendations different than what the mayor had proposed for the Division of Environmental Quality and for the Division of Water Quality. In the Division of Engineering, most interesting report, we had a wonderful conversation. We even had a conversation about the rules and theory and practice of the Rainy Day Fund, which was most interesting. But underneath several of the presentations we had was just the lack of continuity on how we treat our greenways and the maintenance of them, who handles them, and how they are handled. So in this instance, we were making a recommendation of moving $30,000 currently budgeted for greenway maintenance to Parks and Recreation out of engineering. And this is specifically for 16 non-water quality greenways. And this was just our attempt to try to begin to bring these disparate groups of greenways under at least one less umbrella. On the next page, the Division of Traffic Engineering. We had a very good discussion there. And, you know, all the cuts, everyone had additional asks. Everyone had additional needs. In this particular instance, we have used an outside contractor to put signs up for us. And as we had our link discussion, it became very clear that the $65,000 that doesn't cover the actual total need, but it does put us back in the business of posting street signs, would be money well added back to the budget so that it would not take our people out onto the road and would use people who do that all the time. And it was an excellent discussion that led us to the idea that the $65,000 being added back in was a savings of money as well as an opportunity to keep the streets safe by having proper signage out there. And then with the Division of Waste Management, we really didn't have anything other than what the mayor had proposed there. With the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry, which we took this kind of separately here, The mayor has proposed $2 million for paving. You know, I was on council last year when we were getting ready for the World Equestrian Games. It seemed like a lot of paving went on around Lexington, and I thought that would put us in really great shape. But in our discussion, there's, you know, you can say, this report says $25 to $35 million in potential paving around the city. You can come up with numbers, I think, both more and less than that. The mayor has proposed $2 million for paving. In talking with streets and roads, I think that they could comfortably lay down $10 million worth of asphalt if we set them out to do that. But in our late discussion, we just wanted to make a better mark towards trying to overcome what, in essence, is a really bad winter that has worn a lot of roads out that I think people, I know in certain areas that I drive, I find that it's not a matter of a few potholes. It's just where the pavement is just turning into, I don't know, connected potholes. I mean, just pavement failure. So the idea was here, if we decided to add more money into paving, we could do so through bonding, which came up with kind of an interpolated cost to bond $5 million worth of paving there, which streets, roads, and forestry could amply program during the next year and I think would give us a catch-up. Like our discussion about pools, like our recommendation about Valley View Ferry, there is still the opportunity to take a whole lot of time and look at what our paving needs are, but I think the 12 of us who sit here in district positions know that there are a lot of paving needs this year, and they seem to be a lot sharper than last year. I feel like for this time in the season, we're still probably patching twice as many potholes as usual. So that was kind of the biggest departure there was the idea that we needed to step up a little sooner to take care of the roads in the city and around the county, and thus our recommendation for that paving change there. In talking with the commissioner, they have kept a list over the years of things that we do that we don't get reimbursed for necessarily. So when you turn to potential income, the first one that we went with there is the idea that one of the best used government programs is our loan-a-box program, which is $38. And, you know, we bring the box to you, we let you load the box, then we come pick the box back up. In looking for ways to balance out our link, the idea is that that is, if you will, overutilized. So if we decided to take that fee from $38 to $75, we would create $50,000 in additional income. And just based on our conversation, I don't believe it would harm the use of the situation. I think people would still use that. It is a great service that the city does. secondarily in this area. Right now, we as a city pick up dead animals from veterinary offices, and we do not charge for that. Some veterinarians do charge for it and then hand them off to us. Some don't. In this instance, in going through the numbers that were supplied to us, that cost during this budget year is around $66,000. So in trying to come up with a fee just to cover unreimbursed costs, if you looked at a potential fee of around $45 per animal, you would recoup those costs. Third, in watching what environmental equality is doing and the active role they're taking in educating the citizens to what environmental equality is and what litter and trash and doing your duty are, we have an opportunity to help them with their efforts by continuing to educate the public along the lines that it is illegal to litter. And in looking at the background information here, you know, that's one of things that if you wanted to, if you look at the hard numbers with a certain amount of citation, if you will, one memo says that we could, in essence, fine for littering up to the amount of an excess of $4 million. Now, that's not the level to which we're trying to help educate the public, but at $1 million, it is a level to which we felt is something that would help the efforts of water quality and help balance our budget all at the same time. So in that instance, the $1 million mark there is one that we believe would be fairly easy to come up to if we decide to make that a point of emphasis. And then on the following page is just our other recommendations, which, you know, what you get when you're sitting with everybody is the opportunity to talk about how things could work, how we could partner differently, what our opportunities are. One of those was the idea of doing a little outreach to the Fayette County Public Schools to ask them potentially to provide us with the opportunity to give us some reimbursement funds for SALT services so that we can work better hand-in-glove with them to make sure we're salting where they need to have SALT done so schools can be open, rather than both of us kind of being at the wrong end at the wrong time and a school being open or closed based on something not happening. So this A here is the idea of doing a little bit of partnering with the public schools. B, I've already made comment, too, in terms of our partnering with Madison and Jessamyn counties. C, I've also made commentary, too, in terms of greenway issues and responsibilities. They are a great opportunity for us, and right now they're just spread a little bit too far out in government. One of the other items that was on the list that potentially has an income base to it is for UK game day cleanup and garbage and bulky item pickup, which is something I think that we work on in committee or with the administration. Nothing we wanted to make a very hard number report on here today. And then in a couple of instances, the use of the city's property is kind of uneven. Some people pay for the use of the city's property for some programming purposes. Other people do not. And it became a little too murky for us to try to make a recommendation to the council at this point, but I think it is an opportunity for us to look at it in the future because it is just uneven. Some people do pay and others simply do not. F, there's a potential to shift landfill tax to other areas in need. And the idea there is we're going to be capping one of our landfills, and we have some money there to cap it. When we're done, we should have some money left over, but we just need to be ready with that opportunity also. And then, again, in talking with streets, roads, and forestry, we want to make sure that we negotiate to have kind of the best warranties we can have on paving so that it works as best it can once it is laid down. And then another subpart of that discussion was the idea that you can use different types of asphalt on different types of streets because some have higher use with heavier traffic and others don't. So we want to try to put ourselves in a position to use those paving dollars, whatever they may be, as wisely as possible. And the last page is just a summation. If you took the value of you, the traffic signage, and the potential bonding number and added on to that the loan-a-box fee, the pickup fee, and the litter enforcement fee, in this proposed situation, you'd net out a little over half a million dollars back to the bottom line. And unless other members of the link have comments, I would take questions. And I know all the directors and the commissioner are here. Thank you very much, Mr. Farmer. We have Councilmember Ed Lane. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. I had a question regarding the dead animal pickup. What division of our government handles that? I was not aware that we were doing that. I'll let Mr. Feast take that. I'm just reticent to talk about the whole area personally. Waste management. The question is, what division of our government handles the dead animal pickup, and how does that work exactly? Well, it's just done on an on-call basis. when residents call. We will dispatch a truck, and it will be serviced usually on that given day. And, of course, it will have to be in the street and it will have to be in one of our service areas. And if there's a dead animal in the street, there's no charge for it? That's correct. But if a veterinarian or somebody has a dead animal and you pick it up, we would then charge a fee for that? We have not to date been charging a fee. Okay. Okay. Well, the other question I've got, you know, I represent the 12th District as well as some of the urban service area here. And we've had an issue regarding dead animals in the rural area. And I'm not really sure about this, but I believe the state maybe had a program for the pickup of larger animals. I don't know whether they compensated for it or they actually handled it. Do you have knowledge of that at all? I'm not aware of that, no. As far as I know, there's – I think streets and roads may have some insight on that. Outside of our service area, I'm not real sure. Okay. All right, that's all I've got. Thank you very much. Mr. Farmer, I had one more question for you. And my question was regarding the educational components of the vision of water quality and the vision of environmental policy. Is that – do you each have a half million dollars budget and you consolidate into one million, or how did you come up with the million-dollar number? I didn't follow that exactly. It's separate. It's all of the TV sponsorships. It's all of the ads that run on, all the sponsored ads, which is totally separate from what we're talking about. That's going on in environmental quality right now. What we're saying is if we decide as an entity to begin to enforce laws that are on the books about littering, which is what those ads are saying. They're saying pick up your dog's due, pick up your trash, use a trash receptacle. If we decided to enforce laws on the books now, income would be provided from that. So in the example that was given in the link, it could be upwards of $4 million if people were writing as many citations as possible, if you will, So just in terms of trying to both partner with water quality and the citizenry, we just used a figure of a million dollars because I felt like that was an opportunity to start but not to overdo, if you will. The reason I was asking about the number, I thought if each department had a half a million, you could put it together, maybe spend $750 or $800, and you'd have, by merging the message together, you'd get more advertising impact and it would be a lot less expensive. I was just looking at a lot to save a little bit of money. It's an excellent point. Okay, thank you, sir. That's it. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Farmer, thank you very much for your presentation. I had a couple of just quick questions. With the engineering recommending the $30,000 to go to parks and recreation, had you all discussed that, this didn't come up during our link, so I was just wondering if you all had those discussions with parks and whether or not this is something they were agreeable that they could do and maintain. We may not have taken advantage of that part of the loop. Okay. Thank you. And then the other question I had was your first recommendation. I know we've gotten a lot of input on keeping this open, and clearly when you depend on people working in Fayette County, and this is a tremendous asset to get people here, I was just curious. It seems like I've heard somewhere that this is going to have to be replaced or that there is some in, like, the next three to four years. Is that? There's a couple of different opportunities there in terms of the diesel machinery, the ferry itself, and the wheel. And then there are a couple of grant opportunities at the state level, which is kind of what I was alluding to is we just need to kind of relook at our partnership and update it? That was my question. So is that what you're looking forward to partner with and trying to come up with more long-term solutions if this is going to be, rather than us fixing, fixing, fixing every? I believe the entity of the Valley View Ferry is more important to the state of Kentucky and its history necessarily than to the three counties involved. And I think we should have a larger discussion about how we can partner and let the state be a bigger partner with us. For more long-term. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Those were my questions. Council Member Lawless. One question I have is the Solid Waste Task Force should investigate revenue potential from UK game day garbage cleanup. Well, it's just part of the group of things that they have kept a list of. I mean, in terms of the division or the in public works and environmental quality, there are things that we do that we sometimes don't get paid back for. And these appear on the list as some things that potentially, if we decided to, we could find a way to charge folks for what we go out and pick up that is either left behind as debris or on the curb at the end of a semester. It's a potential income opportunity. Well, the game day cleanup is not done by waste management. And so are you suggesting that the neighborhoods around U.K. who are already in the highest property tax bracket pay extra because U.K. has games near their neighborhood? That wouldn't be my first thought, no, no. I would think that garbage is picked up by the people who pick it up usually, and I don't know who else would be picking it up. If our waste management people weren't picking it up, who is? Well, I mean, they're not out there picking up trash out of people's yards. They're just picking up the trash as it comes. Well, I just think that in looking at the list that they have kept over the years of potential income producers slash reimbursers. There's an opportunity in some areas that a lot of large pockets of debris are left behind either at the end of a semester or at the end of a long weekend. And if we want to, as an entity, to decide to assign a cost to someone for the service of picking that up, we can. And I would assume that it's picked up by our division of collection, and we would be able to place a fee according to either the amount or the type or whatever pickup it is, because in doing the link work, there were four or five other things that if we wanted to ask for reimbursement for, I mean, in this, the toughest budget you're going to, just to kind of make things smoother, if you will, we could. This one was a little bit too in-depth for us at the link level right now to really explore further, but that's how we added it in here because between, there was a couple of subtle examples of where you get a lot of debris and a lot of trash that we feel like, or they feel like, and I agree with them, there's an opportunity to assign a value for picking that up to someone, whether it be a renter or property owner or something of that capacity. And certainly they do go out with several divisions at the end of the semester, as people are moving out and pick up, and if it were assigned to the property owner or whatever. But I just wanted to, game day is the entire area around UK is, and usually that garbage is picked up most after game days by students. the fusion students or fraternities will do, but they put it in the trash. I mean, it's not like waste management has a special pickup after game day. And this is one of the reasons we didn't define it any further or try to assign a number to it, but felt strong enough about it to add it as a point for potential further discussion. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Understood. Council Member Stennett. Let's see if I get the microphone up. We can get the same one. The Councilmember Stenet needs his microphone. All right. Thank you. Just want to ask quickly, the MAP funds. I know Commissioner Driscoll, are you still here? Did we ever get what's going on with the accounting of the MAP funds? Because it still shows, again, a $4 million fund balance at the end of this fiscal year, and that's quite a large number. Remember, I know the link recommended $5 million going into asphalt this year, and that certainly could go a long way towards not having to bond 100% of that money. In terms of the beginning fund balances we did with accounting, and we've got a piece of that analysis, I guess the other two pieces that we're working on is to look at the timing and look at more of a cash flow on that fund. And since it's a smaller fund, we've not accomplished that and coordinate with the individuals in engineering that do that because they have some large projects. Some, I think, have even been approved that they need additional fund balance. The $3 million we get from the state is not enough to cash flow some of those larger projects. So the other two pieces of the three we're still working on. When will we have those? Next week? Yes, I think at this point it's a priority. So we'll do our best to get it by next week. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a couple of follow-ups. I appreciate Chairman Farmer chairing this link. And a couple of things to some questions that were asked, I wanted just to give further clarity. Council Member Lane, I think there may still be confusion to your question. What the link found was that if you go with enforcement, meaning fines, that you could generate upwards to $4 million if we fined everybody that was littering. If you want to enforce what Council Member Farmer was doing was saying, Fred, an enforcement piece, it could bring in a million dollars worth of fine revenue. So I just want to make sure that that was clear. It wasn't just advertising monies. Council Member Crosby had mentioned the $30,000 that engineering would like to jettison from their mowing budget and move over to whatever umbrella. Council Member Farmer had mentioned that we hadn't had discussion with parks yet, But I have had conversation with John Sheed during this link process earlier today about using that money and putting that over there along with maybe the $61,000 that we found that was double counted at Avon and moving it over to parks to where we might have almost upwards of $100,000 of mowing money we didn't have before we started today. The game day piece, Council Member Lawless, I think one of the key pieces of that is, that the task force that Council Member Stennett has asked to be put together about solid waste, what we will and won't do. I think that question gets answered in that process of what do we do on these days where we have high generation of trash and large things, large items like mattresses and things when people move out. It's not just down in your area. Obviously, Cardinal Valley has some of the same issues and so forth. So there's other pockets of town just beside around U.K. but I wanted to clarify a couple of those things that that's where some of these things will get fleshed out. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lane. Sorry, Council Member McCord, but we could call that $1 million marketing fund, the Campaign to Educate Illiterate Litterers. Sorry. Are there any more questions? If not, Council Members will all entertain a motion to adjourn, and then we'll reconvene at 3 o'clock. So moved. All those in favor, say aye. Anybody opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.