The Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. 2011. And the first item on our agenda is to approve the summary from May the 10th. Motion approved. Second. Is there any discussion on the summary? All those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? We have a slim six. We have a... We have our... They're in the... I knew they were here, but they're not in their seats. Okay, let's take that vote again. To approve the summary of May the 10th, we had a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Now, we will go back, and is there any public comment on issues on the agenda? Did anyone sign up? Okay. Okay. If there is no public comment, then, Council Members, do you want to hear the reports before we go through our docket, or would you prefer to proceed with the docket as usual? Do I hear a motion to change the order of the business? Vice Mayor, I move to change the order of business and hear the reports first. Okay, we have a motion and a second to hear. We have two reports. One is the presentation of the 800 megahertz radio system, and one is the Sheriff Witt's report. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. So thank you for that, Council. We'll go ahead and hear from David Lucas, who has our report on the 800 megahertz radio, and Commissioner Clay Mason. Welcome. Good afternoon. On behalf of the Department of Public Safety, I'd like to briefly introduce this subject that I think has been before you several times as far as a council. And in summation, what we're looking at today is a presentation on the technical aspects of what has been a federally mandated but unfunded program to do narrow banding. It must be fully completed by the end of 2012. The radio system here that especially the police department uses is incapable of being compliant with that, so we need to make some investment in some new equipment and technology. The problem that we face is that we are just over 18 months out. But there will be no leeway, according to all of our contacts with the FCC, in terms of an extension. This plan has been in place since approximately 1996. Many jurisdictions have already switched over. To name one, Louisville has completed theirs six or seven years ago. Kentucky State Police is in the process of finishing their transition. They still have about $2 million to spend, and they will be completed. Today we're going to hear from officials with the Division of Police, Division of Fire, and E911 to talk about what has happened in terms of our preparation. One key note to keep in mind is that the information that will be presented in terms of the technical solution for this was done by an independent consultant who has no vested interest in any particular part of the solution. He is just there as a technical consultant to give us information. With that, we'll turn it over to Chief Bastin of the police department to talk in particular about their system. I guess I'm talking today about the system because ours is the oldest technology, the radio system that we're currently using. The police operate a conventional analog VHF radio system that was installed originally in the 1960s, so it's a very dated technology. We updated the technology in 1998, made some improvements to help with coverage and functionality. But nonetheless, we're stuck in an analog age when digital is what everybody else is going to. We currently have seven transmitters at three tower sites within Fayette County, operating a total of nine channels and 16 frequencies. Our division currently has about 1,450 radios, 730 of which will have to be replaced that aren't capable of being upgraded to the narrowbanding capability. The strengths of the current system that we have are, number one, it's very simple. It's stable, it's durable, requires minimal management. Existing personnel that we have in-house can maintain the radio system that we have. They understand it very well. VHF signals by nature transmit clearly over long distances and penetrate buildings, which is something that is a huge issue for us and certainly a safety concern. So those are some of the reasons we like it and some of the strengths of the current system. Weaknesses, though, are several and many with all the capabilities with the digital technology today. The most limiting factor of our current radio system is interoperability. We have no way to communicate with other public safety entities in Fayette County unless we go to a major scene and actually trade radios, and we take one of theirs and give them one of ours. so that they can listen back and forth. We can't talk to each other over our current systems because we have different systems. We can't communicate with the fire department, the Fayette County Sheriff's Office, Airport PD, or any of the other law enforcement agencies within Fayette County. So that's a very severe limiting factor of our current system. Some other things as the PowerPoint slide goes through, I'll go through a few of those. Emergency alert with ID display. We don't have the capability of knowing who, if someone pushes a silent alert button, the panic button on a radio, who that radio belongs to immediately. We have to go through a process now and try to figure out who the radio is assigned to. The digital technology, the newer technology would allow us to do that. Voice encryption on many scenes, crime scenes, and emergency response unit call-outs that we go on, we have to transmit over frequencies that may not be scrambled or encrypted, and therefore others can listen to what we're saying to each other as we tactically approach the issue or the problem. It can cause us significant problems. Individual calls, we have no way right now, no capability of one person, one officer talking with another in a private manner over the radios. Again, that leads to some issues. We don't have the capability of telephone interconnect. Sometimes, you know, for radio signals go down for coverage or whatever. With the new technology, I'm told that we can use cell technology that's built into the radio system. So it gives us redundancy in the ability to continue to communicate. Location tracking, GPS for radios, which is another huge safety issue. If an officer hits a panic button, the only way we're really going to know where they are now is by where they last got out and told us they were on the radio. With GPS tracking, we'll be able to position the radio and where it is when it's on. Remote transmit capability. This would allow a dispatcher to open the channel and actually remotely and listen to what's happening. So if an officer picks up and says, I need help or something, and the radio goes dead, gets lost on the floor or whatever, the dispatcher actually can open that and listen to what's occurring there and find out. Again, it's a huge safety issue from our perspective. Stun and revive is another capability that we don't have. You can remotely turn a radio off. If, for instance, we have a radio button that becomes stuck in the transmit position, right now it causes us tremendous issues with transmitting, other units being able to transmit because that channel is blocked by the radio with the stuck button. With this technology, it can be remotely turned off and so immediately alleviate that issue. Over-the-air programming, this would allow our technicians and the folks who are operating the radio system to make any updates and improvements, schedule maintenance to the radios without having to require all those radios to come back into our shop. Typically now when we do a radio update, it takes two to three weeks to get all of our radios and folks bringing those back in. It takes quite a bit of staff time to do that. This could all be done remotely. Text messaging, another capability that we don't have now that would be with most all of the new systems, and there's some others, but those are the highlights. And I guess Paul C. is going to come from the Division of Fire and talk about some other issues. Thank you, Chief. Good morning. Or afternoon. It's afternoon. Some of the advantages, we have the fire department partnered with the University of Kentucky in 1998 with the 800 megahertz radio system. We have a lot of the capabilities that are listed up here on there, the ones that are marked with asterisks, As you see up there, those are the ones we do not have the capability to do right now. The quick solution to the narrowbanding problem is to bring the police onto the 800 megahertz radio system. The problems we have with our current system is, number one, it lacks the capacity to handle the added traffic that the police department would bring onto the system. It was not designed to have those as users. The other problem is the age of the equipment that we're dealing with. Most of the equipment was put in in 1998. The manufacturer, it is a proprietary system, proprietary to the Harris Corporation, and that's what was available at the time. Now that manufacturer, Harris, has limited the development of new software, new programs for this radio system that we're currently operating. They're all moving to a new standard, which is a standard in public safety called the P25. And the other big weakness we have with the current system is coverage. We're currently operating off of three radio towers around the city, one at Patterson Office Tire, one out at WKYT on Winchester Road and one is actually in the very northern tip of Madison County right down at I-75 and Clays Ferry and it limits our in-building coverage so when you have a firefighter inside of a building they have a very hard time getting back out to contact dispatch some of the work we did, we hired the consultant and he put together a timeline to help resolve some of these issues and what it would take to bring the system up to where we could bring the police onto the system and have a unified system where we could all talk on one. We're looking at the summer of 2011 to input short-term recommendations. The consultants gave us some recommendations, some real quick fixes that we could do to solve some small problems we have with interoperability between the agencies and between surrounding counties. They don't solve the capacity issue. They don't solve the age issue. Later on this year, we'll be looking at preparing RFPs and working on selecting vendors. As you can see there in November 2011, we're looking at selecting a vendor. Moving on, RFP finalizing contracts, looking to take about a month to do that. In the consultant study, he was looking at a total of 420 days to complete this project, and that is consistent with a project of this size with radio communications and all the infrastructure and all the coordination and engineering it takes to build a system. As you see there, the summer of 2012, we'd be implementing infrastructure. That would be starting in January, running through the summer, of putting that infrastructure in and getting everything put together. Then work on implementation and testing over through the fall, and then have it all wrapped up by December 31, 2012. Now, that's a significant date. The commissioner mentioned the January 1, 2013 deadline that is imposed on us by the FCC. That is not a new deadline. That deadline was started back in the early 90s. They first made the recommendation to go to narrow banding in late 95, early 96. They actually set the date for January 13, 2013. They set that date in December of 2004 is when they notified everyone around that this is the hard date. He mentioned waivers. There have been applications for waivers of that date. The FCC has denied extending that date. So that's where we stand. And then we're looking, other thing we mentioned there is moving on beyond 2013 is to transition the other existing users onto the new system. So that way we don't have to go out and buy a whole lump of radios at one time. As we buy new radios, we can migrate them onto the new system rather than having the one large capital outlay for radios at one time. And then extending on, we've looked at also extending out to neighboring counties to improve our interoperability with the neighboring counties. We do do several mutual aid from time to time with those counties, and communication is always at issue. And we usually go back to the old swap on the radio, and we have one of theirs, they have one of ours. And Dave is going to handle some fine. Yes, Dave. Dave, leave me to bring up the money issue. As mentioned before, we did go, I was here probably 18 months ago. This is not a new topic. We've talked about it for over three or four years since I've been involved in E9-1 and realized that the radio is one of our weakest links in public safety. And we've all remembered instances where our radio system was not up to par and had fatal consequences. Previous when we came, we did in-house study to find a solution for our radio. It was very expensive, and one of our original goals was to get it taken care of before WEG. Obviously, we couldn't make that because of financial issues and a very short timeline. If you recall, when we had discussions, I think it was 2009, the question was put to me, David, how long do we need to build a new radio system? And the answer was 18 months. And the reply I got from council was we'll come back July of 2011, and that's why we're here. In the meantime, we did go outside and we hired RCC, which is a radio consultant company that does not sell any radio components or sell anything that we'll be purchasing for a radio system. And they did a full report for us. That full report will actually be posted on the Irma County Government webpage. It will be under the Commissioner of Public Safety's website, and that can be downloaded for anyone. What you're looking at here is the final analysis. This is a quick one-page summary of the recommendation after their four months of study and interviews with everyone inside of Fayette County and the adjacent counties in the public safety arena. The first one that Major C. mentioned before was incremental improvement. He identified around $75,000 worth of issues that we could resolve with purchasing some radios that are used in other counties, doing some professional services to get a patch between 911 locations. And that's something we need to move forward with, and we're actually applying for a grant from the state to move forward on that. The incremental county-wide system is the one we have outlined earlier, and the ranges you see in the price tag on that is we need to build a new infrastructure. We are not moving police to fires current system, and we're building a new 800 megahertz system that will accommodate all of our current users with some growth potential for other users. The infrastructure is a range between $5 million and $15 million. The radios, which is the one you see our officers here with on their hip or the ones they have in their vehicles, with the infrastructure that is built properly, we could purchase the radios from anyone. In the past, you had to build the infrastructure and then buy the radios from the same company. As you can imagine, that really runs up the cost. So we are moving to what they call P25 open system where we'll build the infrastructure, and then we'll have several different companies bid on our business to buy the radios. The advantage is that we have maybe four to six companies bidding for the radios, and we can buy radios for the specific need of the users. Fire and police do not have the same needs, but they do need a radio so we can get what they need for their type of business and for command staff versus line staff. So the range is at four to nine, and we're looking at a total budget estimate of around $20 million over three fiscal years. As Major C mentioned earlier, if you gave me $20 million today, I couldn't build it in a year. It's going to take us some time to build it and implement it and transition from what we have today to the new system and to migrate our other users. Besides police and fire, we have UKPD, airport police, Lex Tran, Fayette County Schools. There's a lot of people on our two systems now. We want to get to the point where we can all work together and talk on the same system. The final step you see there is a region-wide system. And the reason that is the ultimate goal is the only way to get federal funds is to do something regional. They're not going to fund us. They haven't historically for the last six years because it's a silo. They don't want us to build a system that can only be used in Fayette County. They want a system that can be used across county lines in the whole region. And our goal is to be able to tap into some other funds, especially out of Madison County or on the federal level. So the key is to build infrastructure with the right hooks and attachments so that we can go and get federal money to add on to it with federal funds. So those costs you see on the far right column are actually not, those are individual costs. They don't stack on top of each other. And then the last item on there, we've all mentioned that narrow banding is a deadline. We cannot get around, and there will be compliance issues if we do not get there by that date of the end of December 2012. That is our last slide. I know you have a couple additional items in your packet that will talk about radios in fire and police specifically. And, of course, we're all here to answer questions in any of our areas of expertise. Thank you very much, David, Commissioner, and Paul. There are some questions, and we'll start with Councilmember Stennett. We're having technical radio problems. We're here to help. We still need that technician, I tell you. We still need the budget. Thank you, David, for the presentation. Commissioner and Chief Baston, you brought in the heavy hitters today. to lean on this one this time. Eighteen months ago, we had this same conversation. At the time, there was no suggestion of RFPs being put out to do this thing right. There was no suggestion about the region-wide system or mission to police and fire under one system eventually. And I'm glad to see that, finally. And I think that's what we were looking for, so I'm kind of glad we did go back to the drawing board and bring back something. Definitely a lot better product, but a lot more realistic that we can actually implement. My first question is, what is specifically the cost you need in this year's budget to start this timeline going down a path we need to get going. The exact figure I wish I had, but I'll tell you our estimates. And the reason we don't have exact figures, we want to do an RFP and get them. But what we're looking for is we need $5 million in the fiscal year that's coming up, the one starting in July. That's it? Cool. Mr. Farmer knows me. The other shoe is $11 million in the fiscal year following that, followed by, I believe it was $3.5 million in that third fiscal year. So you're asking us to bond $5 million this year roughly in this current budget. And the other aspect of that is we have tried for grants for several years. and every grant we go to, especially on the federal level, they say, where are you putting up money on this system? And we never could say, here's what we're putting into it. And they are not going to give us any money unless we have some on the table. So we definitely need that figure because that figure is based on getting the consultant in here, getting the RFPs, and come December, we'll have a hard cost for those remaining two-and-a-half fiscal years. These are assumptions based on what product we go with. There are some things that can also extend that out in terms of payments. We're looking at cash flow options. We're looking at grants. We're looking at the possibility of the use of some of the E911 funds to help cover the initial layout. So that initial figure is an assumption at this point in terms of what we're looking at. And what type of bond would we be looking at payment-wise? Have we looked at that yet? Is it a 10-year, 20-year bond package? I mean, the asphalt was about $400,000 for that $5 million bond, so I know we're at least looking at that. We haven't looked into the figures that closely. This was a technical presentation, as I mentioned this morning. Well, we've got less than 30 days, so if you can get that to us in two weeks, we'll be diving into it pretty heavy. The consultant finished up his report about two weeks ago, and we've gotten to this stage. So we're working on that next. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for the presentation today. Just a couple questions. You talked about UK and Lex Tran, et cetera. What's the cost-sharing plan? Well, currently we have a contract with UKPD, which I believe goes for another five years until 2018. And under that contract, if we move the system, we will migrate them with us because actually the original system was theirs, and we're a partner with them. Our main tower is on Patterson Office Tower. Fortunately, the majority of their radios we can migrate to the new system without replacing. LexTran is using our network as with Fayette County Schools, and Major C can give you some details on that. We're not looking at buying them radios. It's a technology sharing and infrastructure sharing process. I just want to make sure that's kind of clear. Right, but Commissioner, I would think that as we build the infrastructure, they would share in that cost as well. They have been. I think that's something that Major C can explain in terms of the towers and things like that. Okay. As far as with Lex Tran and Fayette County Schools, it's my understanding that they were actually partners with UK before we were. So they came along with the system, and they have been using it. Their agreement, I believe, is with UK, not with us. So the other thing that they have brought to the table, for example, UK, they have brought the tower site to the table. Usually your tower sites were paying anywhere from $6,000 to $7,000 for one tower up to $26,000 per year to have antennas on tower sites. So by them bringing a tower site, that's kind of their cost sharing. Fayette County Schools has offered a site. I know there was some discussion on that the last time this came up about whether or not to put it in a school system or not, or next to the school. But that's some of the things they're looking at doing in bringing some cost sharing. One of the other partners we're looking at is bringing in the Bluegrass Airport. and they have offered a tower site to use at that facility as well. So that's some of the things we're looking at that they can bring some cost sharing to the table by bringing a tower site to take care of the utilities to provide that and then we just provide the infrastructure and then we all share the common system. Okay. Just real quickly, the tower site is kind of an in-kind contribution. Yes. So are they still going to add some dollars into the system though? I may have not been approached to that yet. I guess that's what I'm asking is as we negotiate this thing, I would hope that we'd ask for more than just in-kind contributions. We can look at that. Thank you. Mr. Lucas, you said $5 million to $15 million. What's the spread there? Why is the spread so big? On the infrastructure? Yes. The reason is we need to set a standard for, as the chief mentioned, penetration. We want the officers to be in a building like this, this very thick building we're in now. So what you do is you set your standards. We would set a core downtown where we have to get 98% coverage and then give a list of other facilities, all schools and hospitals that need to be into. So each one of these consultants who want to build the infrastructure will give us a price. We really don't know the range. We haven't done a good study. And the reason we've never gotten that before, we put up towers based on what was convenient and where we can get one cheap and not where we needed it. So a study, we don't know what we don't know. We know where our dead spots are, but we don't know how to solve in the most economically feasible way. It could be six towers. It could be four towers with boosters. So that's why there's that range. And that's why we're looking forward to those responses to see what the true cost will be. Okay, a couple more quick questions. On cell tower locations, can we use a cell tower to put this antenna, or do they interfere with each other? They do interfere with each other. Yes, they do. You can. I've seen them do public safety with cells, but it's always that caveat. You do have the problem with interference, and then you have your tower being controlled by an outside entity. Okay. And then the last question I have, you talked about grant opportunities. Normally, the process is in government, if you have a grant you want to write, you come blue sheet it, put it to the council that you're going to apply for this grant knowing that there's going to have to be a match. So you said there's grant opportunities out there that you've passed up because they always ask what the match was going to be from the government. We didn't have anything. My question is, moving forward, when you see those grant opportunities, can you go ahead and blue sheet those and bring those to us to say, here's an opportunity to get matching money, but the city's going to have to put up X percentage to match? Yeah, definitely. We did that earlier in the 08 and 09 era, and we learned. I mean, we went through council and we applied because you always have to give us permission to apply. Ironically, we never came back with the acceptance, and that's what we learned, why we never got one. So what do we need to do different moving forward? We're going to show them that we have money and we are making a commitment, and they have asked for where in your budget is money for your radio. And now we have that documentation, which was our shortfall on many of our applications. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Crosby. I have questions about the money, too. So the $5 million for this year's budget that you're asking for, for the next fiscal year, actually, is that for the incremental improvements to the existing system? That will be for the incremental things. We actually do that starting in July. It's also for once we get the bids in, we'll start doing the infrastructure right in January. So it's only a portion of the infrastructure costs that we have to have implemented by August. And then in August, we'll start rolling the replacement of police radios. But you don't know what portion that is because then what you said earlier was with the infrastructure, that will be an additional $11 million that you'll be asking for in the next budget cycle? Yes, that is a combination of infrastructure and radios, the actual handheld. So you're suggesting that you need $5 million for the first thing, for the incremental improvements, and to show part of that for that, correct, to be compliant? To start the infrastructure on the bids we get in December. Okay. It only pays because the building of the infrastructure will take more than six months, so it will go into the next fiscal year, and a lot of those we won't pay those until they're operational. So they'll be building them, and we actually don't pay the bill until the infrastructure is operational. So I guess my question is a portion of that will be used for the implementation, and then the remaining portion goes into the next budget with an additional $11 million. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And these are just ranges. So you could come back the following year and say that actually it's going to be $15 million, even with the carryover. Or it could be less. We're hoping it's less because of the heightened competition. What we didn't have 18 months ago was competitors competing against each other for these systems, and we're relying on that to bring the price below our estimates, which are in line to what we had before. This is a consultant's estimate range. is not something that's carved in stone in terms of the dollar figures here. I'm assuming this consultant has done this with other communities that have had to be compliant with this? That is correct. He's done several. Him and his company have done several of those. And throughout his report, he outlines the cost and why the range is so wide. But he definitely has more expertise than anyone here. and that's why we went out and got them to get those numbers. Is there any way that we can get that part of the report? Because I think what some of us are having a hard time is it's such wide ranges from $5 million to $15 million, but like you said, he does line it out within his report, and it may become a little clearer to us if we actually see the information. We have that report online, and I'll pull that segment out and forward it to everyone, kind of like I did earlier today on another topic, so I'll pull that section out and give you the link to the full report as well. Okay, and then also with the technology, I know that it moves kind of fast and furious with these radios, and will you be looking at getting, I mean, what may be good now by the time we implement the system? I think what we have found out as a council through your previous discussions is that it often changes. will this get us in compliance for things down the future or will there be upgrades to the radios that can be done versus having to change out systems? Well, contrary to what we talked about 18 months ago we are doing two things one the infrastructure and one the radios and the advantage is going to exactly what you mentioned the radios will buy them incrementally we will buy them all at once we do have some radios today that we can just program to work on the new system. The other ones, quite literally, will be paperweights. But we'll migrate that over, and that's how some of the costs is spread between fiscal years, because we'll get police operational first, so we meet the mandate, and then we'll move over to fire. And as technology change, we can change with it. So the newer radios would be compliant with the system we put in place? That is correct. And then some of the existing radios can be already made compliant? That is correct. Okay, thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, sometimes as cheaper as more expensive. And, you know, what I want to make sure is that as we do this, that we build in sufficient capacity so that we don't have to redo it earlier down the road because our community is going to continue to grow. And just like our storm and sanitary sewers, we have to build a little bit of capacity now for what's down the road. You know, we looked at this last, I guess, last summer, early, I guess last spring, in looking at the preparing for the World Equestrian Games. And I'm not sure, but I think I was the only council member who voted for this when it came up. But, you know, I just want to make sure. I think that it's time to do this. We obviously are required to do this. and I think that I want to make sure that we do it in a way that is long-term, that we build a sufficient, robust system that we're going to be able to rely on it for a while and that it will be a highly excellent system, I guess, a system that's going to be robust and that's going to keep us for a good while. So sometimes cheaper is more expensive. And so I appreciate you coming and talking to us, and I look forward to hearing the specifics about how we go forward on it. Council Member Lane. Thanks, Council Member Gordon. Thank you, David, for coming in. The first question I had was the police system, and you may or may not know the answers, was evidently 1960s technology. But do you know what year it went into service here in Fayette County? Anybody have an idea? Was it prior to the merger? So it's over 30-something years old. So I guess we got our money's worth out of that system. The other question, David, was when we – this has been before the Council more than once, and I just wondered now that there's more competition for radios and, you know, time has gone by. Has the technology gotten cheaper in price? Did we get at least a little bit lucky? We might not be on the dime, but maybe the price went down due to our inability really to afford it at the time. The advantage we have by delaying, even though we weren't looking for this advantage, is there is more competition for the subscriber units and there is more competition for the infrastructure. Last time there was only two players. Now there's at least five players on each of those in the infrastructure and the radios. Additionally, what we don't want to get caught into is as we get closer to that deadline, we're not the only people trying to meet that deadline in the supply and demand. We don't want to get caught in that spiral. So we do need to be cautious of that. Okay. If my memory is correct, we also could tag on to the state had a contract last time, and we were eligible to get their state price if we wanted to elect that vendor. Is that still a possibility too? Our consultant is confident that we'll get a much better price by going out on the street on our own than what is on that contract. Okay. How long do the radios last? What's the ballpark? Well, we have radios now that are over 10 years old, and we only can get the parts off eBay. So our technicians are great at stretching the radios out. The radios that we have seen in our market come with four- to five-year warranties before we even have to start paying maintenance on them. So that's more than the one year we get now, the one who stretched 10. So we're looking at using these for the next decade. All right. The reason I was asking is if we could phase them in, you know, one-seventh of them a year, one-fifth of them a year, then we wouldn't have another big year come up. We'd have a huge hit. We would just be a steady replacement policy on those, and that would be a good thing as far as managing the acquisition. On the cost-sharing area, I know people think that Durham County government is big, but, for example, U.K.'s annual budget is $2.6 billion. That's what it would be. So they spend a lot more money than we do now. We probably need a lot more radios than they do, But I think my thought here is that we ought to evaluate the total cost of the system and let there be an allocation of cost based on usage and let every person on the system buy their own radios and some plan like that so it would be equitable because, you know, I'm for having as many, you know, public safety entities on the service as possible so we could spread the cost, have better communications. But I don't think we should be, the urban county government, when I say we should be stuck with too much, you know, more than a fair share of the cost. So if you could be thinking about how we could fairly allocate the cost, that would be a high priority for me, too. And I would say in closing that I think this is one of our top priorities. Obviously, public safety, I think, is our number one duty for the city to protect and respond on a timely basis to emergencies that come up. and also for the safety of all the public safety workers we have so they can communicate with each other and help each other on a faster basis. So good luck and go forward. Thank you very much. I would like to say that the other entities outside of urban county government do today, and we plan on continue, will purchase their own individual radio units. LexTran has already came to us when we had this discussion before to help pay with the infrastructure because they have needs that did not meet ours, but we could join our money together and get something better for both of us. So we've already had those discussions, and actually they're kind of looking forward to see where we're migrating to, and they've already approached us with joining in on the cost of the infrastructure in addition to the handhelds, which traditionally they've always paid. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one follow-up question. our government is a major player in terms of partnership with the state on emergency preparedness. So have you contacted them about helping us out with this system at all? Do you have someone in mind when you say emergency preparedness? You're talking about emergency management or homeland security? All of it for this region of the state. We have consistently gone after the homeland security grants every year. We've actually already – I think we've already blue-sheeted some for this year for some of the incremental parts. The emergency management, we – Pat Deggert's group, we're actually hopefully lean on them a lot with the CSEP program. And obviously the fire does a lot with BERT and other ones that go outside the county, which is one reason we want that regional approach and we can start getting some of those funds. But we have talked to people on the state level, and they say we're more broke than you are, but we'll help you any way we can. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Councilmembers, are there any more questions? If not, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Now, we'll go ahead and have our second presentation. This is the sheriff's report on the community corrections, and we have Sheriff Kathy Witt here and Commissioner Mason. Will you be assisting again? Okay. All right. And we have, we welcome back Ray Sabatini. I have a quick question. A blast from the past. Vice Mayor, I just have a question. Yes. When you just asked your question, do we have a presentation? I guess I just didn't understand. Based on the information we had, it was my understanding that we had just one presentation that how it was listed that they would be doing it either together somehow. I don't have any materials for a second or a follow-up. No, from Commissioner Mason. But that's not part of our presentations today. I don't know. Both are on the agenda. So we're allowing people to say they're going to do a verbal presentation now without having materials in front of us? The radio is in the packet. And we got Sheriff Witt. We do not have one. I'm just asking the question. Which one are you missing? I didn't have a question about it until you just asked Commissioner Mason, and he said he was doing a separate presentation afterwards and that it's verbal. We don't have materials for a separate presentation. By the way it's written in the packet, it looked like that they were presenting on the same thing, but together during the 15 minutes, but that they would be talking separately. There's no separate materials for a separate presentation. I presumed it was all the same presentation. That's how it's listed in the agenda. We were asked to do that for the purpose of the process. We don't have it. Okay. The council did not receive anything. We only received Sheriff Witt's report, as far as I know. I mean, I hate to be a stickler, but you removed a presentation two weeks ago when we were here because we didn't have it before. And I think that we need to either be, I mean. I agree with you totally. And I thought these were the same presentation. But what you're saying, Commissioner, is they're separate? Is that correct? Well, how about if we hear yours at the next meeting? Because the council has a rule, a 72-hour rule about presentations and receiving the documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. We have no documents. It's a verbal presentation. So what is your pleasure? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Actually, as the one who put forth that motion to put in the 72-hour rule, and it's my understanding that this presentation from Sheriff Witt was postponed because supposedly her presentation wasn't ready, if you're going to present something from Chief Fogg from his review of the jail, I would expect as a council member to have something in writing on that and not just a verbal presentation. So I would move that we would wait to hear that when we have the written presentation 72 hours in advance. So moved. Do I hear a second? Now is there discussion? Council Member Lane. Commissioner, is there a legal reason that you don't want to have a written report on this? No, it's pretty short. It's a management review, and we didn't prepare anything written. I was just asking, because there might have been some sensitive points, or something you didn't want to put in writing. No, it's pretty short. I think that Chief Boggs is probably under 10 minutes in his discussion. Okay. That's all the questions I've got. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? And does your motion have a date connected with it, Mr. Myers? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess just the next work session. But I would think that if the police department or the administration did a review of the jail, that the council could expect something in writing and not just a 10-minute verbal presentation on that review. I think it's pretty important that the review was done. I think that our community wants to hear the information that was gleaned from that review, but to not have a written report from that seems kind of odd to me. And so, again, I urge the council to support the fact that we would have a written document to codify or to memorialize this presentation. So the date would be the next work session. And that date would be June the 7th. Is there any more discussion of the motion? Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I have to echo what Council Member Myers said. I mean, it's something that is as serious as review of our, I guess, correction facility and the operations there. I would expect, I guess, some writing about, I guess, who was interviewed and the process for what was going through. I look forward to Chief Boggs' report because we all have huge respect for Chief Boggs. And so to be able to have that in a form that is, I think, has some permanency and some way to document what was done, I think would be very helpful for the whole process, particularly if we're going to be asked to make structural decisions based on that report. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Crosby. I would just say also that it helps us as council members be prepared for what lines of questions we might want to ask during the meeting if we have the materials. And I can't ever recall when we've had a presentation during my term that we've not had anything that has been given to us within that time period. Thank you. You're welcome. Is there more? Yes. Mr. Reed and Council Members, is there any more discussion on the motion? Okay. Jeff Reed, hello. That's fine. We will have something in writing to you in two weeks, but where the conversation is going, let me explain that the administration has been involved in kind of an overarching look at the problem of the jail, involving primarily the report that you're about to get from the sheriff, which is an extremely comprehensive, thorough workup, and we've been working very closely with the sheriff. We also solicit the opinion of Chief Boggs. Chief Boggs has been at the jail a great deal as well and has been working on a number of issues related to the jail. again, understand your position, will comply. His report is more ancillary to this initial report and really, I think, provides some backup data, a little bit different view. So it might be well that you do pursue it this way, but it's not a lack of attention by the administration to the issue. We're certainly dealing with this issue seriously and spending a lot of time on the issue, and I think that would be reflected by the sheriff's report. Okay. Thank you very much for that. Is there any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much, and we'll look forward to Chief Boggs' report on June the 7th. And that packet will get put together on June the 2nd, if you can get that information to Jeanette in the council office. Welcome, Sheriff Witt. talking about the migration to the new radio frequency system. The Office of Sheriff in 1988 migrated to the 800 megahertz band, and we have since that time maintained our mobiles, our portables, and our antennas. So if the appropriate person who could make that decision believes that our digital antenna sites would be of benefit to the project that you just heard about, the Office of Sheriff, as we've done many times on many occasions in the past, would be delighted to share our antenna sites with you all because we are all partners with each other in public safety. I've enjoyed working with Commander Martin in the past and now Commander Stack, and we have a very strong relationship in ensuring that our public safety officers are best protected. We also recently migrated a lot of our portables to a dual-band portable so that right now, immediately, we are able to, once we disseminate them, we're able to immediately talk to our partners at the Division of Police on the same portable, as well as simultaneously talking to members of the Office of Sheriff. Once those portables are issued and the other 800-only portables are collected, We would also invite Director Bishop to consider allowing us to issue our other 800 portables to the transportation unit of the Division of Community Corrections, so that once they leave the facility, with what you will see, with lots and lots of incarcerated offenders who are accused of very heinous crimes, that they will have the opportunity to reach our staff immediately in the event of an emergency. So I just want to offer that up for food for thought. For whomever can make that decision, we certainly would welcome the opportunity to partner in that respect. But today I do appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes to discuss the examination of opportunity report that's been submitted to you last Thursday. Recently, as our team was working on a separate project for the Office of Sheriff, we noticed that some of our work intentionally showed what we do inside the Division of Community Corrections. So we've gleaned those images and we've made a short video that we would like to play today as an introduction for our discussion. And to also give those of you who have never had the opportunity to tour the facility at Old Frankfurt to have a glimpse of the exterior and certainly some of the interior portions of that facility. What strikes me in the video is the extent to which it demonstrates what we all know and sometimes take for granted, that the correctional facility serves as a hub where virtually all of the different members of the criminal justice community intersect in performing their respective roles in the system, including all the various law enforcement agencies in our community, the various prosecutor's offices, the defense bar, the court system, and, of course, the Division of Community Corrections itself. Thank you. I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm out. Thank you. custody and intake space and an additional 30,000 square feet of administrative office space. It's situated on 71 acres and located on Old Frankfurt Circle. At the time of construction, it was estimated to open with a $62 million price tag. However, when it opened in 2000, it came in under budget and ahead of schedule. The inmate population was transferred from the old indirect supervision facility to the new direct supervision concept facility without incident by members of the Fayette County Detention Center and the Office of Sheriff. It was truly a remarkable event to watch unfold. A key architect of this vision, both in construction and concept, is here with us today and provided invaluable input for this review. Ray Sabatini, the former elected jeller and the first appointed director, today is the CEO of Sabatini & Associates, a consulting firm which is highly respected on both the state, and national levels, for it's mainly his expertise in the field of corrections. His donation of over 40 years of his life to corrections makes him more than an expert in the field. He continues to be called upon by jails across the country during their time of crisis, their time of growth, and their time for their community's call for change. As stated in the report, Ray was the last elected jailer and the first appointed director of the Fayette County Detention Center in the Division of Community Corrections. It was during this transition from elected jeller to appointed director that he, along with the elected body of leaders, realized that the current operations, both in construction and concept, were unsustainable. No longer could our community afford to warehouse offenders and have any realistic expectation that they wouldn't reoffend upon reentry into our communities and to our neighborhoods. The new vision that took shape recognized, first and foremost, its duty to protect the community from harm. This vision also recognized that safety would be enhanced if detention centers did more than warehouse people. Today, we continue to be the recipient of these community leaders' vision with our nationally recognized design facility that has so much untapped potential, both in bricks and mortar, acreage, and human capital. The Division of Community Corrections houses over 1,100 inmates daily and typically has an average staff of nearly 230 men and women who are for the vast majority dedicated to being diligent and committed partners in delivering the quality of public safety that our community expects and that our community deserves. Day in and day out, they find themselves managing an inmate population that's ever-changing. The change in the inmate population often presents itself as more violent, less educated, more severely mentally ill, and more physically ill as well. These demographic changes can often be correlated to the changes in society and economy. These changes represent different risks and oftentimes additional costs to be borne by LFUCG. The report presented for your review last Thursday represents the guidance of Sabatini and Associates, the collection of observations and findings of many, including members of the DCC and its administration, and represent what is hoped to be a blueprint for the future. The Office of Sheriff's team participated in the inspection conducted by the Department of Corrections on February 15th. This inspection and tour was one of many that the Office of Sheriff participated in during the first and second quarters of 2011. In fact, many members of the Office of Sheriff have a daily presence in the Division of Community Corrections in large part due to the biometric collection of evidence for IAPHIS, the live-scan fingerprint system, the transportation of incarcerated offenders, new arrests being brought into the facility and new warrants being served upon persons already classified in the inmate population. The inspection on February 15th found that the Division of Community Corrections was in compliance with the minimum standards set for all of Kentucky's jails to be measured against by the Department of Corrections, except for the following areas in which it was found to be noncompliant. In the area of food service on February 15th, both I and the DOC inspector observed undercooked or all but raw eggs being served to the inmates. Paint fumes in dormitories where maintenance was being performed but no accommodations have been made to move this portion of the population. Smoke detector covers being loose, lights not working in various housing units but adequate lighting conditions still being met. Vents needing cleaning in order to provide adequate ventilation, unauthorized temporary beds in various housing units causing the staff-to-inmate ratio to be unreasonably high. individual cell doors creating safety issues, and mattresses being in service that were thought to be the original mattresses purchased in 2000 that were cracked and severely damaged, various toilets not flushing, various showers not working, and low water pressure in various housing units. In addition to these noncompliant issues, the Office of Sheriff's team identified other areas of concern that have been discussed throughout the report. Prior to discussing these areas, though, I feel it important to highlight some areas of success. The most valuable resource of any organization or business is its staff. These staff members are men and women who have chosen to be a part of a collective team and who are dedicated to ensuring that the job gets done. Our team was fortunate to have the opportunity to speak with many members of the DCC team, both in the bowels of the facility and in the administration. Several of the recommendations listed in this report have come from these conversations, and in some cases are also their recommendations as well. It was refreshing to sense that there was a significant number of staff who understood the importance of the role of a correctional officer in a community corrections setting and who wanted to fulfill that role. I've chosen not to highlight individuals for fear of omitting some worthy person of recognition, but please know that we have identified some who are worthy of such recognition in the appropriate forum. The programs and services provided by Comprehensive Care, the Hope Center for Men and Women, GED classes, the AA and NA meetings are also worthy of special recognition. These programs work in harmony with the community corrections concept, and it is recommended that they be expanded in order to reach more of the inmate population. It's also worthy to mention and to state today the year of the last successful in-custody suicide. As you will recall from reading the report, one of the alarming facts of the Clark Street facility was the high number of successful in-custody suicides. Today, our Division of Community Corrections reports that the last successful in-custody suicide occurred July 1, 2004. Although one suicide is one too many, this tremendous reduction is worthy of recognition. As our team completed its work and consulted with Ray, on many occasions there seemed to be a reoccurring theme in every notable observation and subsequent recommendation, the need for the creation of a Community Corrections Commission. The membership of such a commission was listed in our report, but was meant to serve as an introduction to the concept and the need for diversity of such a group. It certainly was not meant to be the final makeup of the membership. That should be defined by your collective body. The enactment of this membership readies our community for the implementation of House Bill 463 and can guide us through this comprehensive crime bill. The implementation of House Bill 463 in the next few weeks, it's right upon us, will require that we collectively come together and change the standard of practice that we have known for so long. What better way to embrace this legislation as well as improve our collective delivery of service to our community but by enacting the Community Corrections Commission in much the same way as the original Criminal Justice Commission was enacted? Sheriff, I apologize for interrupting you. I hope you were told that you had 15 minutes. Four minutes left, right? Well, no, our clock just ran out. So if Council wants to make a motion to give more time, that will be fine. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I make a motion that we extend the time for five minutes. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? This is clockwork. This is which clock? Does my clock work? Oh, I don't know. The clock is generated off the computer. Okay. So you've got five more minutes. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. During the inspection, there were issues that were identified by DCC staff and our team that posed officer safety concerns if they are not corrected immediately. The severely damaged mattresses allow for the potential of the concealment of contraband, as well as pose health risk both to staff and the inmate population. Our team is advocating today that funds be approved to replace these items. When the team reviewed the infrastructure, it found security risk as well. It is recommended that the upgrade to the digital camera system, as well as the security system, proceed without delay and proceed very aggressively. We also made observations that could result in tremendous cost savings at the DCC in areas of staff, the reallocation and restructuring of staff, and staff positions as well as suggestions for new revenue streams. These potential new revenue streams utilize technology as well as present the facility that stands ready to partner with DHS, Immigration Customs Enforcement, the United States Marshal Service, and the Department of Corrections and the housing of their inmates. The daily cost per inmate to house our local inmates is too high compared with other facilities in the Commonwealth. Our team strongly recommends an in-depth examination of all contracts to determine where cost savings may occur and to explore new opportunities such as telemedicine and video visitation. Having been the administrator of an agency that has always paid its own way and created its own revenue for its own budget, I am a firm believer that we all are charged with working towards some level of self-sufficiency. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these cost-saving measures at another time and in the appropriate forum. There are also program areas that cause our team to make notations. These areas involve apparent practices that may be improved to increase efficiency. Prior to the Office of Sheriff assuming primary responsibility for fingerprint submission in IAPHIS, there had been a practice of not fingerprinting all arrestees. Certain classification of arrestees were not fingerprinted once brought into the facility. We have spoken with supervisory custody staff and have asked that this policy be reviewed in order for all fingerprints to be captured and submitted. It also appears that the NCIC hot files are not being queried prior to the release of individuals. It is strongly recommended that all persons be checked against these files prior to release so that individuals with outstanding fugitive warrants won't be let out our exit doors and back into our community. On several occasions during our visits, members of the inmate population approached our team asking for assistance in getting their status correctly documented. In these cases, we found that interstate compact agreements had not been followed through, as well as the failure of additional holders being placed against these individuals. We recommend that additional training be given to the appropriate unit at the DCC, as well as a collective meeting with our fugitive division to determine how we can all better work together. CAP, the Community Alternative Program, has recently received significant attention. This program allows for drug testing of those ordered to submit to such tests by our courts, as well as electronic monitoring. The issue of electronic monitoring has received tremendous attention as well, recently both on the state and national level. However, our team found concerns with the policies and practice of our current program. It is strongly recommended that the CAPP portion, the electronic monitoring portion of CAPP, be suspended until such concerns can be addressed and reviewed, or if suspension is not an option, that in the interim that the Division of Police and or the Office of Sheriff be asked to perform the duties of the home visits and the home removals for persons under electronic monitoring. The team identified another important issue that I believe would be best explored through the Community Corrections Commission. Today, I will briefly mention it, but its significance is truly not brief. In 2010, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 37.8% of the jail population in the United States was African American. You have about a minute. As our team reviewed the DCC population during this time of examination, we discovered that 37% of our own population was also African American, and only 14.8% of our community was African American as identified in the 2010 census. This is an issue that should be explored immediately upon a collective body such as the Community Corrections Commission. The issues of how to truly implement these models and concepts in order to dramatically reduce recidivism while providing an environment that holds offenders accountable and a career track for professionals who choose corrections as a career is a complex issue, and it requires further study and further dialogue. Our team believes that the creation of this commission will help foster that dialogue and that work. In closing, I find my thoughts, as they often do, reminding me of the purpose of our very service, yours and mine, individually and collectively, that our charge is really quite simple, and it defines what is required of all of us, to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly. Thank you very much. Thank you, Sheriff Witt, and thank you, Mr. Sabatini, for your work. And now we'll have questions. Council Member Lawless. Oh, thanks. I read your report, which is quite extensive and lengthy. I read it about three times. And there were several things that stood out. We have a state-of-the-art building that is 10, 11 years old. And yet the cost, the daily cost per inmate funded by LFUCG is $86.07 per day per inmate, which is higher than any other Commonwealth of Kentucky Department of Corrections facility, which range from $37.98 to $72.05. And I find that, and in addition, we have all these maintenance issues and problems. Also, the issue that, and I participated some in the public safety transitions team, the really scary part of how the CAP program is done with sworn officers from the jail not being properly trained or properly outfitted to go into a completely unknown situation when, you know, a home visit or someone breaches their boundary on their monitor and putting them in horrible danger. The other thing is the booking. I mean, there are a lot of things in here, and I hope the council members have taken time to read this thoroughly. But the time spent booking inmates that actually Council Member Crosby kind of brought up when we were looking at public safety, the police, when the police or I guess the sheriff's office go to book an inmate there, that sometimes they have to wait a very long time, And that's police officers and other public officials that aren't on the street, you know, doing what they're supposed to be doing. And so I really hope that the commission can be put together. I think there's some very serious problems. I appreciate your very positive way of stating the opportunities and examining opportunities rather than focusing on the negative. But clearly, we all know there are big issues there. So the other piece of information is that when our jail personnel transports to court and sits there for however long, we don't get reimbursed by the state. But if the sheriff's office does the transporting, it is reimbursed by the state. So I would imagine that's a large cost to us. It is a partial reimbursement to the Office of Sheriff. It's part of our fee-based structure that all the sheriffs in the Commonwealth operate under. Okay. So it looks like there are a lot of very severe problems, both for the people working at the jail, the inmates, and the community at large. And, you know, like I said, I underlined and put question marks by lots and lots of pages. I appreciate the in-depth report you did and the work that you did on this, and I look forward to hearing more about it. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Sheriff Witt, for this wonderful report. I have a couple questions. Do you know how many beds are usually unused at the jail? I think it varies just based on, I'm not sure really how that's defined to be, but on our different visits to the Division of Community Corrections. During one tour, there were two completely empty housing units. On every subsequent tour, there was at least one, sometimes two. Sometimes in combination with that, though, we found housing units that were housing an excess number of inmates. So there were the temporary beddings placed in the common areas to house more inmates in a certain area than normally is allowed, and that was also noted in the Department of Corrections inspection. That's probably due to a couple of different things, and staff shortages certainly could be one of those things. Is there an opportunity for state prisoners for us to house them for money? There certainly is that opportunity. Ray may want to speak to that better and more in depth than I. That opportunity exists as well as opportunities to house individuals awaiting deportation proceedings. That was my next question. That was my next question. and customs enforcement. Well, actually, you should be talking to me. Can you go to the mic, please? Yeah, I can do that. You've been away too long, Ray. I know. I'm sorry. You really need to talk to Ron Bishop about that. But if we can go back historically a little bit, when we first opened this facility, we chose not to house Class D felons at the county jail because we started out with about 850, And within a year or two years, we were actually over capacity, and we knew that we didn't build enough beds to start with. So we didn't want to take on the Class D population. But at this point, if you have two housing units that are empty and you have House Bill 463 that is getting ready to be implemented, there's probably an advantage to trying to house your own Class D inmates that actually came from Fayette County. The issue is, and we're talking, there's so many things on the top of my head, but they did have a couple housing units that were empty, and they did have some people in housing units that were on the stack of bunks that overcrowded the facility. But you have to realize every time that they open another housing unit, that's $350,000. Okay, so it's not like you just get Class Ds and they're housed for free. There is an advantage to housing the Class Ds, especially with the new legislation, because what you're going to find is that what you're proposing as, or what is being proposed as a community corrections commission, will be the nucleus of the group that actually implements House Bill 463 and the reintegration of people that came from the state and that are coming from the state and those that are being diverted from the state back into the community by this piece of legislation. So there's going to be both opportunity and challenge in housing individuals in the corrections inside the detention center as well as developing community corrections opportunities outside the facility because the way this House bill is written, you're going to have an influx. What they basically did is transferred a huge amount of responsibility from the state prison system to the county jails, and some of it funded, some of it on a promise. You don't know what's going to happen. But if you have two empty housing units and it's $350,000 to staff those housing units, If you're getting $35 a day from the state and you already have your core services funded, then you're going to make some money to help defer the cost of some of the things that need to be done at this facility because we've been deficient in resourcing it for the last 10 years. And it's not like it's an intentional thing. It's just a matter of governments tend to deal with things that are on the front burner, and when you have a new facility, you don't believe that facility would be on the front burner. It's on the back burner for a while. But as you neglect it, not intentionally, but as the neglect takes place, and then we have what happened to the economy, we had a double whammy here. We had not paying attention to the jail, and then we had the bottom fallout of our, or your, resources for the government in general. So now we're in a situation that we need to be smart in managing our populations and in putting some infrastructure monies back in the jail so that you not only can house what you have now, but that jail has a capacity of going to 2,000 beds with a whole lot less money than you had in your original 1,000 beds because your kitchen is designed for 5,000, actually to feed 5,000 people, 2,000 beds, but you can feed a whole lot of people out of that kitchen. So your core services, the laundry, the booking area and all that, was sized for 2,000. We have 1,000 people in there. So if you have a community corrections vision of housing people that are low-risk offenders in the community and transition them successfully into the community that is not the detention but the community corrections model, then we have some tremendous opportunities ahead of us. But there's cost to everything. So it's a matter of this community corrections commission needs to be there to be the independent advocacy for the division of community corrections and for the community corrections model in general. So if we put this thing together, that will be the guidance and independent advocacy, because it's hard for those of you that are elected officials to make a decision to put money to fund an inmate or to fund somebody that's in your school system. And it's not a pleasant thing to do, so that's why the independent advocacy is so important to have sufficient resources to run these organizations. Thank you. And it appears that my time's up for asking questions. But I just will, I guess I'll just say that I'm anxious to hear the other report that we're going to be getting. And hopefully we can discuss this more in depth. Because I was surprised, even just in the few minutes we've had, to learn, for example, that we currently don't get reimbursed for transporting people, but the sheriff can get partial reimbursement. And so clearly by maybe looking into some options of creating a commission, a CCC or whatever they're calling it, might be an opportunity for us to look at resources that are available for us to actually get reimbursed for some of these services and try and take what's the best of both reports and come up with something. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As I see, I guess on page 44 of your plan of action, there's the call for the creation of this commission and the following ex-officio members of the proposed commission, as you kind of put it together. And I noticed, Sheriff, that you've put yourself as the chairperson of that. Is there any particular reason why you're the chairperson? I did, just for suggestion. And as I said in my comments, it was not meant to be the plan in concrete or the end all, that meant to foster discussion and to dialogue about the importance of the creation of the commission. It was also directly tied to KRS-71-110. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Are there any other questions, Council members? No. Thank you very much for your report. Thank you, Mr. Sabatini. And we will look forward in a couple weeks to the second part of this. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Council members, we'll go back then to the beginning of our agenda. And the next item is number three, review of the docket. And we'll work our way through the docket. We have first reading of ordinances. Are there any questions, matters to refer to committee, or items to be removed from the docket? Okay. I had a list, but Dr. Blues, are you first? I apologize. The list disappeared. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. Regarding item number three, this issue originated in the Planning Committee. It worked its way to Council as a proposed text amendment. We sent it to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission returned it to us, as you see, disapproving unanimously. but also including a number of suggestions to the Council for future reference and possible resubmission. So accordingly, I think this ought to be looked at in committee again, and so I move to refer it back to the Planning Committee. Okay, the motion and the second are to refer number three back to the Planning Committee. Is there any discussion on the motion? If there is none, then we'll take the vote. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? So number three will be recommended to go to planning committee. Mr. Lane? Yes, ma'am. My question is, this is a committee of the whole meeting and we can't take official action, so are you planning to refer this to the council meeting? Yes. And then we'll actually vote on it there. It's like what we do each Tuesday that we meet, and it'll go on that list of motions. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that's what we were up to. Thank you. And then is there any other item on first reading of ordinances? I'm sorry. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I actually, on number four, I would like to ask also that we refer this to a committee. I'm not sure where this comes from, but I had lots of questions regarding the, well, I think it should go to budget and finance first, because I'm not sure what the economic impact of this is, where it came from. I don't know if there's a large number of caters, solo caters in B1 or B2 or B2Bs. It just, I'm not sure where this came from. And there was just state legislation passed where commercial kitchens can be on farms. So I think this is something that we need to look at a little bit more in our committee and the impact of it. Do you want to repeat your motion? I'd like to make a motion that we refer this to budget, item number four to budget and finance. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. All right. Council Member Kaye seconded. Is there any discussion about the motion? If not, all those in favor of bringing that referral forward Thursday night, say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, let's take a hand vote here. All those in favor, say aye with your hand. One, two, three, four, six, seven, eight. Those opposed? Four. Do we have an abstention? With one abstention. So that motion passes eight to four, and that will come forward Thursday night. Is there any other motion or item on first reading of ordinances? Yes, Vice Mayor. There's a list. Okay. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On number eight, I assume the Vice Mayor, you got your question answered. This is the REORG, Reorganization of Government. My question is, didn't we schedule a future CAL meeting to continue discussing this as a group? Didn't you send out a survey monkey in regards to this? That was regarding the council restructuring. Council, but not the all of government, okay. Yes. I guess I have a question for Commissioner Driscoll. She's still here. Is every one of these items built in the budget that are on number eight? It's rather lengthy, and I'm not sure if anyone's really been through it, but are all the items built in the budget where they're not requiring any budget amendments? There are some that will be a part of the late item list. Do we have any idea of which ones? Some of the... Forestry. I'm sorry? Forestry would probably be one. Some of those changes that Commissioner Taylor spoke to you about, about some of the changes within her department areas of responsibility. And is Sheila here? Because she helped put together this ordinance, so I just want to make sure. I assume the rationale for you just took the normal blue sheet process and put it on the docket because Council didn't take action a couple weeks ago when we had this before us, so you're hoping to get it done before the end of budget season? And that went through the CAO's office? Okay. We can get you those specific ones that were... Yeah, I think that there's a lot of information. I think we need to see what jobs are already in the budget and which ones we'll have to do budget amendments and move to different departments. Okay. Because we've done a lot of link work, and it's not going to match up to the work we've done. And the work we've done may affect this. And, again, any of those that we would include in the late item list, so you would have that information. When will we get that list? On the 7th. 7th, okay. I did have a commission. Commissioner Taylor, you want to answer a question on the forestry issue since we're going to talk about number eight? I'm choosing this one as an example to understand it because I don't think the council understands the impact of moving forestry to environmental quality. Is that just personnel or is that personnel and capital, equipment, trucks, vehicles? Where does all that go? In this particular case, forestry, we're looking at that as really a two-part program. There's a programmatic forestry, and then there's operations. Operational forestry, the folks that do that work, like the cutback program on the rural roads and all that, have the chainsaws and the trucks and the equipment. And those folks also flex in and out of the other work teams that we have in streets and roads. So if we have a snow event, people flex across the different teams. So we don't propose to move the team that does operations. But what we did want to do was move two positions, urban forester and arborist tech, because those are the people that actually lead the program. Right now they spend most of their time dealing with direct tree issues as opposed to, for example, right now we're having two incidents of emerald ash borer reported, and we don't have a very clear plan on how we're going to approach that. There should be a plan, and we've already taken a couple of trees out, and now we're getting a second report. So I want those people looking forward, thinking about how we grow the program, how we add trees, maybe a youth tree core, you know, the program of forestry as opposed to the operation of forestry. Okay, so who will be over the operation of forestry since it's that piece of stain in streets and roads? I don't think a lot of people understood that. Well, we still have two folks, Cortland and Rob, that would stay in. So they'll be director positions or they'll just be under Sam Williams who will have control? Who will dictate their operations? Portland. That's what happens now. He's a supervisor or a director position? He is an arborist. That's his position. And right now. He'll take over the day-to-day operation side. And who will be over the other side, the programming piece? Tim Query, Urban Forester. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lane? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yeah, I'm not trying to be hard to work with when it comes to reorganization, but I'm a little bit concerned that maybe we're getting just a little ahead of the process because we've only had two LINCS committees report out. I know one of those committees had recommendations to change personnel, and I know that the LINCS committee on which I'm involved has got some changes proposed. I don't know about the other two LINCS committees. and there's also been a couple of departments that were changing around that there was some discussion on. So I wonder if there would be a way we could not just delay it until the next Cal meeting that we, in other words, maybe table it just until the next Cal meeting. Is that a motion? Okay, I will make that motion to table this until our next Cal meeting, which would be? June the 7th. June 7th, okay. Okay, the motion is to table number 8 until the June 7th Committee of the Whole and seconded by Council Member Ellinger, and this is non-debatable. So would all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay. Let's just go ahead and take the electronic vote. All those in favor of tabling, please signal aye. All those opposed, nay. And that motion passes 8 to 5. So number 8 will come back to us on the docket when we look at the docket on June the 7th. Now, Council Member. Yes. Vice Mayor, we still do have to vote on this again, right? This is the recommendations going into the council meeting. Yes, Thursday night. Council Member Martin. I just had a question about item seven. Is there someone that can help me understand? And is this still relating to the reorganization and the budget? Yes, sir. Number seven, the position is one of the positions, that position, particular position is slotted for elimination. and there was a need for that position in the water environmental quality. So it's moving that same position in the incumbent from the public or government communications area to Department of Environmental Quality. Is there someone currently in that position? Yes. So we're eliminating a position that has a person currently in it? We're transferring the person and the position. The person and the position to water quality. Yes. Environmental policy, excuse me. Okay, sorry. And I guess, who is that? Because our link, this falls within our link, and I guess we have some recommendations. Am I correct on that? Information officer. Sorry, let me try. Leslie's been very helpful getting this set up. But we had – this was completely separate. We had a position that we had a PAQ approved and in the system environmental policy to add another information person. And that's the type of thing that Mark York and Jennifer Myatt do for us. As you know, they do our ag campaigns, our public outreach, our neighborhood meetings, our Shillitoe Park cleanups, all of those kinds of things. And when we doubled the size of the department, we had a lot of needs to add additional work on the public works side of the house. If you'll look on the websites and that sort of thing, public works, some of their websites haven't been updated since 2005. So we want to try to get that all back in sync. In the meantime, we had a position that we had available. And because we, it was during the time period when we were talking about the layoffs, we found that there was a position in our current PIO office for a person that really would be a perfect fit for the position that we had in DEP. So what we asked to do is simply transfer that person. So that's what we've done, as opposed to advertise a position. Is the person being laid off or slated to be laid off by the administration in the mayor's proposed budget? It opened before. This was a transfer. We literally started this transfer four months ago, and we're just now at the point where it's ready to go. I guess my question, though, is it one of the positions that the mayor has slated to be eliminated in his proposed budget? No. Maybe. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. How this all came about was when we first came on, we knew we were going to have a shortfall in the budget. Well, that's okay. I mean, I know you all need to move people around. I'm just trying to understand because we've got some recommendations. This position will be abolished. It's one of those positions that wouldn't be laid off. Once it becomes vacant, it will be a part of abolished position. It will not be built. It will not be laid off. I'm not sure I understand. Right. It was not one of the people who laid off. No, it was not one of the list of folks. It happened prior to that. Because there are a number of those that we have recommended that remain in government communications, I guess. I would not be glad to answer that. When we came on in February and January, we told there were going to be budget cuts. There were positions out there that were not funded by general funds. We knew general funds was going to be the first budget cut. We asked these commissioners that had money that was not general funds, it was restrictive funds that had positions available before we even did any layoffs, before we even recommended layoffs, to start moving some of these people around. And this happened to be one of the positions that came available that is the same position as in PIO that went over into this position. And for the folks at home, we're sort of talking in code because we don't want to embarrass whoever it is that this position is. So maybe you can maybe slip me a piece of paper or something with the person's name, and that might sort of help us understand who this is. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Moving back to number eight that we tabled to the June 7th meeting, I want to be able to get some information at that meeting so that we can go ahead and vote and not table again. So I guess before I make the motion, I'm interested in hearing the urban forester's comments on that move regarding forestry. And then also, I've heard that the Office of Economic Development is not going to be created after all. But the way this is done in this packet, we don't have the org chart, so it's kind of hard to see what's here. It's just a list of positions and things. So if you could bring to that meeting on the 7th the org chart and help us understand what's in and what's out from the last time that you talked about it. And then also for myself, I'm interested in the management of PIO. and the link has kind of weighed in on part of it, but there's still some management positions going away if things go as planned, I guess. So my question is, who do these folks report to? Because it sounds like to me that it's going to end up being structured under the mayor's office, and that poses a concern to me to have government communications, and I might be incorrect on that. So, okay, that's not that much different in a sense that you've got the communication on for government. I would prefer not to see it politicized. I'm not saying that's what's going to happen, but I'm saying that the opportunity might be there. So that's the concern. So I want to hear what your plan is so I can feel comfortable that that won't happen. So I move that the administration come back and present to us additional information about the restructure from the administration's perspective at that June 7th meeting. I want to leave it open so other council members who have specific information that they would like can add in that. So the motion is just that the administration comes back and presents June 7th their restructure. So moved. Council Member Ellinger seconded. is there discussion? Council Member Crosby. Council Member Myers, I just have a quick question. Are you referring to, you mentioned an organizational structure. Is that what you're asking that they come back and present with these positions? Or maybe you didn't mention that somebody else could have with these positions in that structure and have it there. Is that all your? The orange chart was how it was presented the first time. Yeah. But now it's just kind of put in this framework here, And so we don't have that org chart to follow to see. It was easy to see that diagram and what they were going to move and kind of get the conversation around why they wanted to make those moves. But when it's presented in this fashion, which I know is just the proper course of doing the blue sheet, I'm not saying they did anything wrong, but we don't have the visual and the understanding behind what it is they're trying to move. I agree. I was just asking if that's what you were asking for. Thank you. Thank you. So is there other discussion on the motion? Council Member Lawless? Council Member Myers made the motion, said other people might have things they want to add in. And I'd just like to maybe suggest that any other questions people have, that they email them to, I assume, Richard, and copy all Council Members so that. That's a good idea. Yeah. So if you, Council Members, if you have things you want to add to this that you still have questions about, email them to CAO Maloney and copy all Council Members. Other discussion? Okay. Council Member Martin. And as we do this, I would like just looking forward on this to be able to vote on specific pieces of it. Because this is a big reorganization. We might agree with some pieces, but not other pieces. And so as we think about how we want to sort of attack this very large reorganization, to be able to vote on specific pieces of it, because otherwise it's going to be quite complicated. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I mean, one of my concerns is this not only includes the organization of the government, But it's also moving people around within those departments. So it's a very complex ordinance, which I don't even know that I can analyze it. So I don't know whether you would even consider redrafting this. One would be just to show the departmental changes, and the other one would show the personnel changes. So it would be a little easier to manage. Do you see where I'm going there? Because, you know, I don't want to hold up progress, But because a lot of the personnel issues are being evaluated at the same time the reorganization is being evaluated, I think if we don't do something a little bit more streamlined, what will happen is it's going to be a big mess when we finally make the approval on it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Maloney. We'll be glad to get all that information for you. But the other thing is if you all do start individually voting on where I'm moving, And you don't need to tell us where you're going to put these people because we've got this lined up. Where are we going to have these commissioners? I put a lot of faith in these commissioners, and they do a tremendous job. And have you all met them in the four months? They're working hard. They put these plans together. So if you start moving people around, of divisions around, it's going to be a serious problem when they have not been trained to supervise or those departments. So I just want to make sure everybody understands that wherever you do move it, And please let me know in advance so I can at least have my commissioners be able to know that they're going to be taking on something that they were not told to be taking on. So I just want to be sure that everybody, so we won't be caught off guard. Okay. Councilmember Lawless. I'd just like to say that I think as we get more information, trying to, I do think a lot of thought has gone into this. It may or may not be perfect. It can be changed. It can be reevaluated. But I think us trying to piecemeal it and vote on one little piece or another little piece is probably going to be pretty disruptive to the whole process of success. So thank you. Are there other questions on the motion? Council Member Martin. I guess just to weigh in, I think it's going to be very disruptive to try to do this and rubber stamp this as one big. I disagree with the CAO that we should basically have to take it or leave it. I think that this is a very long, complicated thing, and I think that being able to look at the various pieces of it, there are some things that the council might agree with, but some things the council might not agree with. And so, you know, I would, again, urge the council to look at these various pieces of this very complicated reorganization in certainly logical groupings, but not sort of all at once or nothing. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Are there other comments on the motion? Mr. Maloney. Yeah, I was a minute. Jeanette found page 24 breaks down everybody that's being moved. There it is. It has all the information where they're being moved to and all that. And when we did the re-organization a couple weeks ago, you have your chart we gave to you all and it has where every one of these people are moving in, what department, where they're coming from and all that. Now, Councilman Martin, I did not mean to say we're here to work with you all. The problem is we've been working with this for four months. I just know we don't want to wait until the last hour or the last minute when the budget starts to come in place. We want to be sure everybody's on the same angle here, and that's why we don't want. We came here because we were kind of rushed to do this because we did make some changes, but we apologize for the delay, but I think we have come back, and everything you all have asked is on page 24 on who's moving and where it's moving to where, and anything we can give you any more information, we'd be glad to do that. But I didn't mean to say that, but I do need to know if you do make these changes, I'd like to know in advance so I can at least get my commissioners to be trained to know who's going to be moved there or whatever we're going to move it to. We're just trying to be here to work out and make this a better government, and that's why previous administrations have come in here. They've made changes, and this administration's making changes, and we think we're putting it to the right way. And that's why I've been straightforward to all of you all, and this mayor's been straightforward to all of you all. We're not here to railroad anything through or rubber stamp anything. We've had two presentations. We've been working on this for the last couple months. So I just want you all to know we're not asking for a rubber stamp here. We just want you all to answer. And anything you all need is on page 24. Thank you. We know it will all work out. Thank you. So, Council Members, pages 24 and 25, be sure and take that with you and take a close look. And then, Mr. Maloney, if you can email around the org chart, it would be helpful again. And then Council Members will email you and copy all Council Members on further questions, if they have any, after reviewing these documents. Are there other questions on the motion? All those in favor, the motion is that the administration present additional information on restructuring on June 7th, and part of that is the emailing of questions in that process. All those in favor, say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We still are on first reading of ordinances, and we have three of them remaining. Are there any other questions on them? If not, we will move on to first reading of resolutions, which is on page 7 of the packet. Mr. Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just for the council members, I just wanted to call your attention to item 26 on page 8. Going back to our earlier discussion coming out of our link report, this is a resolution accepting a bid establishing a contract for litter and debris removal from stormwater infrastructure. We do have a littering opportunity. Secondarily, number 33, which I think is on the next page, describes, I mean, to me it's a public art project, but it's a resolution authorizing directing the water quality folks to provide funding to LexArts, proportionally expensive as sound and video installation highlighting Town Branch Creek, again, an education opportunity, which is being encapsulated in kind of our link report. There's an operative situation out there that we can take advantage of in our budgeting. Thank you. Thank you. Council members. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Yes. Could he repeat that briefly? I didn't quite understand it. Council Member Farmer. There are two items of new business that highlight part of what the link report was in terms of we do have a littering problem that one takes care of. And then the other part of the link report talked about the fact that environmental quality is a partner right now in terms of underwriting sponsorship and commercials to educate the public to what our environment is and what changes we can make in it. And that one had something to do with LexArts? Yeah, if you read it, it sounds like an interesting installation to give people a feel and a sound for what Town Branch is by using loudspeakers in that walkway. It sounds like an interesting project. Okay, thank you. I was interested. I just couldn't hear you very well. Thank you. No problem. I want to – we have some people here who have been very patient, And they're here because of resolutions 36 and 37, which have to do with Eastern State Hospital bonds. And so... I believe I'm to call on Mr. Tom Howard, who is from the Office of Financial Management for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Thank you for your patience, and I know you wanted to perhaps speak a little bit about number 36 and 37. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor and members of the Council. So it's a pleasure to be here today to provide you with a brief recap of the replacement of the Eastern State Hospital that's being constructed at the Coldstream Campus on the University of Kentucky. We also have a construction update if you would like and some pictures if you would like to see some of the progress that's being made out at that facility. But as this body is keenly aware, Eastern State Hospital is the second oldest psychiatric hospital in the country. It contains pre-Civil War structures that date back to the 1850s. It's a facility that serves over 2,200 patients from over 50 counties in central and southern Kentucky. And just a brief bit of background. This process really began in earnest in the 2006-2008 state budget. House Bill 380 directed the Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to seek proposals for replacement. And subsequently in House Bill 406, the 2008-2010 enacted budget provided the authority to transfer facilities and properties between the University of Kentucky, the Bluegrass Community and Technical College system, the Finance and Administration Cabinet, to not only build a new much-needed psychiatric hospital, but to free up campus space for the benefit of the University of Kentucky, to provide a new campus for the Bluegrass Community and Technical College, and to provide a link in the evolution and economic development of downtown Lexington. Additionally, House Bill 406, and as supplemented by House Bill 1, the 2010-2012 state enacted budget, authorized the Finance Cabinet, along with the Cabinet for Health and Family Services, to enter into agreements that would ultimately provide for the lease payments to the Lexington Faheyt Urban County Government or the Public Facilities Corporation to finance a new $129 million hospital entirely from state appropriations. And as this body recalls, and was so critical in accelerating the construction of this facility through a three-step process, Initially in 2009 with an $8 million Lexington Fayette Urban County Government bond anticipation note to fund the planning and design, followed by the issuance of a $65 million bond anticipation note in 2010, which refinanced the original ban proceeds and provided some additional construction funds. And finally, what's before you tonight in items 36 and 37 is the permanent financing that will take out the bans that were issued last year and to fully fund the completed construction of the project and to provide the certainty that the state will know how much to include in its 2012-2014 Executive Branch budget submission to make sure that we can fully pay for those obligations when they come due. And at this juncture, I think I would like to call on Joe Meyer from the Department of Facilities and Support Services. He's the head engineer over the project to answer any questions you may have about the construction activity. Okay, very good. Thank you so much. And we also, I believe, have in our audience John Merchant, our bond counsel, and Bob Pennington from Morgan Keegan, our financial advisor. So, Council Members, do you have any questions about 36 and 37? Council Member Lane, welcome, Mr. Meyer. Thank you very much, Madam Vice Mayor. We do have some questions for you. Okay, that would be great. I have a couple of pictures. Oh, a couple of photos? Yes. That would be great. That would be okay, and I just can briefly walk you through what we've done in the last year. We actually went out to bid last April. We started construction in June on the road, which starts about right here, and we've constructed that part already. We also went into a bidding session in August, and we have received all but one bid in August, and then we had our last bid received in October, so the entire project is under contract, and it is within or a little under our budget. and we are on schedule. So just to kind of go through the pictures very quickly. That is. Can you pull the microphone close to you, please? Okay. Is that better? Yes, thank you. I have a weak voice. My mother always complains. Now, this is just a picture of what the building will, the facility will look like. This is the main hospital building. That's just another version of how you will see the facility as you approach. That is a construction progress right now. You can see the bridge that we put out on the early site contract, and that is we can actually use that bridge. We're trying not to. We're using the low water crossing over here so that we have a lot of concrete trucks and those kinds of things. You can see in the background, this is the main. We have the main hospital. It has a low spine across the front, and then we have three main towers. All those three main towers are topped out with steel. Concrete is in place. HVAC equipment, the main air handlers are installed in two of the towers, and we're moving forward. And you can see here the three main towers that we were talking about, and this is the main front spine. So we're moving quite quickly as we go through the process. You can see we're starting to close one of the towers in. We have interior stud walls going up, making progress. Just one sort of example of what's happening inside the buildings. Going back here, the area where I just showed you is the main hospital area. We also have personal care units. There are four of those, and they're located over here on the right. And that, you can see we are just starting on all of those. We have steel and block going up on three of those facilities, and then one, the foundations have been poured. The project is overall approximately 25 percent complete. All of the drainage, site drainage systems are basically in place. We're in the process of running utilities to the facility. And that's really all I have to show you. So do you have questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a financing question, not a construction question. Sorry, but the project looks good. Oh, thank you. The project looks good, but my question's on financing. Sure. Thank you. Kit. We have Mr. Howard, Mr. Pennington, and Mr. Merchant. A very distinguished group. Welcome to Lexington. The reason I was going to ask a question on this, we're basically going to be placing a $150 million bond, and we're going to be relying on your lease agreement, I guess, to pay us the debt on that so that we actually incur no cost. The only question I've got is do you feel that in any way that would impact the bonding capacity of the city of Lexington with regard to any other bonds we might issue on our own behalf? From the state's perspective, absolutely not. We have been in discussions with the rating agencies, all three, Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch, and they intend to include this on the credit of the Commonwealth just like any other state lease appropriation transaction. Okay. That was my main question. I would concur with Mr. Howard. So everybody's in agreement on that. Okay, well, thank you for coming. Mr. Council Member Martin has a question. It's nice to have the suits up here. Thanks for coming up here, John. It's good to see you again always. And these are the same sort of line of questions, so one of my questions I just got checked off here. And this is kind of a benefit for folks at home and sort of the ABCs and municipal bonds. And so can you kind of explain what the risk to the city is if the bonds default? And if heavens forbid that there should be a default in the payments, what is the risk to the city of Lexington? Who pays it if it goes into a default? Well, I'll just preface that by saying that if in the event the state's default, our access to the market will probably cease to be available. So it will be very important for the Commonwealth to maintain all of its lease appropriation obligations. With that said, what happens if that doomsday scenario arises? I'll turn to your counsel, Mr. Moseley. If the Commonwealth failed, I mean, obviously, if the Commonwealth failed to – You mind just kind of speaking in the mic that way the folks at home can – If the Commonwealth failed to appropriate debt service on it, the problem would be the Commonwealth in no way would affect the urban county government or the public facilities corporation. This is really akin to a conduit deal where you've got a 501c3 borrower that comes in that you issue bonds on their behalf, and they have to pay it that's very similar in this situation. So they're not going to come after the city of Lexington then? Not at all. And I think that's really important to understand because this is a lot of money. It's $150 million. And I think part of the thing is just so folks understand that even though the city is our own finances, what we would like them to be, the $150 million is really being borrowed by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Correct. Is that accurate? Yes, absolutely correct. And we're acting sort of as a local trustee or participant. A local issuer on their behalf, correct. Right. If I may, I think it's important to note this is a state facility on state property. Right. The University of Kentucky is actually deeding the property to us, and we'll be a ground lease. And we're managing the construction, so we have every incentive to make sure that we make the payments on these obligations. I remember the ground leases out there. So that's what I had. I just thought it would be helpful for folks to understand sort of the way this works and that we're always very cognizant. We had our rating lowered this year, and so anything that might affect that, we're very sensitive to. Thanks for the suits. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Are there other questions on 36 and 37? Council Members, if not, thank you all for being here. Thank you for the update on Eastern State Hospital. Are there other questions or motions? Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a question on number, let's see, 31, first of all. I see Mr. Lucas. These are the address changes. Can you email the Council the process that goes through changing the address and how many contacts you have with the property owners before they're brought to council in terms of your effort to make sure they understand it just so all the council can understand when these go through. And then on number 41, this is the resolution or, yes, the resolution that it will initiate moving zoning out of building inspection into planning. And I don't see CAO Maloney here to answer this. Mr. King, I see you. I guess you're the first one up. There's Mr. Maloney also. But I guess my concern is the talk was moving zoning enforcement from building inspection, I guess, to planning. That was a recommendation from the task force. But we didn't specify, and I don't think the council would agree, to moving permitting or any piece of permitting to planning. We want to keep that in building inspection. So can you explain to me why it references permitting is moving to? Certainly. Now, the issuance of the building permit would not change at all. What it would be would be the zoning compliance part, which is part of enforcement, would have to transfer for planning in order to give zoning compliance letters and to designate who in the government is the designated by statute zoning enforcement officer that would have to transfer to planning, which would mean then that planning would have to do things like certify the use for occupancy and things like that. Nothing relating to safety or building construction, but to the zoning part of it. I guess I'm confused. The letter you sent out to the people in the community as well as in our packet says permitting and enforcement. So what permitting will you be taking over? Understand. Right now, when you think there is one permit that is issued, which is the building permit, and that also includes your zoning compliance, when Dewey and I were working on this, we thought the best way that we needed to do this was to create a new formal kind of sign-off because we're finding now that lenders, developers, they want something saying the zoning is in compliance. So what we are proposing is we would create something called a zoning compliance permit, which would be our formal way of giving the checkoff in the permitting process that the zoning for the proposed use was correct. And have you all worked out, I know this is just initiating the zoning text amendments to move, but the logistics for how many bodies will come over from an inspection, who will supervise them, et cetera? No, that's something we will have to work on on a parallel track. Again, since these duties and assignments are part of the zoning ordinance, the only way it can be changed is through the text amendment process, which this initiates. We have 16 articles of the zoning ordinance that need at least some kind of amendment in order to do this. So, again, this would just initiate that process. We have, you know, a track dealing with the text amendment, which is set by state statute before it comes back to you, has to go to the Planning Commission, et cetera. While that's going on, Mr. Crow and I have already begun weekly meetings to talk about those back office types of issues and how that would work and other ideas that we're pursuing to see if we can make other improvements and streamlining in this process at the same time. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Crosby. I'm sorry. Did Council Member Lane have a question on that? No, ma'am. I was on 31. That's my next question. Okay. I'm sorry. I saw him raising his hand, and I didn't want to jump in front of him if he had something related. I have a question on number 22, the bicycle racks. Yes, ma'am. So is this part of the streetscape? Yes, ma'am, it is. This is the bicycle racks for Main Street only. Okay. Okay, and can you tell us why? I guess my concern is with the trash cans. We really didn't know what we were getting, and I noticed this is a non-low bid, so I was just curious as to. This is the second time this item has gone out for bid. We originally put it out with some design standards and got some really ridiculous bids. we changed the design a little bit and then re-bid it, and that's where these came back. There were 12 bids out there. The low bid did not meet the design standard. Okay. I'm still kind of out on this one, but I'll see if I can get more information. I think Ms. Lawless has seen the design earlier when we brought it back in. And it's the same basic design that was included in the Streetscape Master Plan that Council approved several years ago. It's pretty close to that same original design. Well, I think, too, the design and then looking also at the cost are kind of two separate issues. And while something like a trash can, the design might look great, but then we may approve because we don't have the details. and we find out after the fact that there's $1,600 per trash can price tag on that. And so I think just being conscientious of what we're spending on bike racks, it may meet the design standards, but what qualifications does a bike rack need to have and at what cost? That's why when we rebid this thing, the cost on these went from $1,200 to $140. That was more my question. Thank you. Yeah, the... It's fine if it's $140. I just didn't... It's actually $144 a piece for... Not $1,200. Not $1,200. Thank you. That's correct. Council Member Lane, did you have a question? Yeah, for Mr. Lucas. The Resolution 31 regarding the street names and property address number changes. Yes, sir. This is just a question for clarification. I don't have a problem with it. But is your procedure that if you're going to change an address, obviously you contact the property owner, but do you also let the council member know that that street might change a name also in their district? We send a letter out, a proposal of a change to the property owner. The council members, usually if we get feedback from a group that's maybe negative and we need to coordinate a meeting or something, that's when we usually get the council member to have a neighborhood meeting or work with them at that point. Okay. So do these go pretty smoothly? Do you have a lot of problems? There are a few on here that are not as smooth as usual. I believe Ms. Lawless is aware of one of them on Richmond Avenue. I'm sure she will be speaking on that. And there are some others that are on here that have not been, you know, even with discussion with the property owners, they're still not in agreement. There's about three like that. Overall, the rest, we usually like to change to what they're using and not vice versa. But there are some controversial ones in here. Okay. And I think one other question I'd like to ask, and that will be it. But once the address changes, it has to be registered, like for GPS locators and, you know, any kind of mapping, electronic mapping. Can you just explain that very briefly? Yeah. Once the address change is passed by council, it doesn't go into effect for 30 days because we notify a lot of individuals and companies. But also we do distribute our street center lines to the state who distributes out to most of the electronic companies that use it, OnStar and all those that people have in their machines and the post office, of course. There is a cycle. It takes six, nine, 12 months to get through, but they do get all of our updates. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. On number 31, actually, there are several of these in my district and several of them that have come before while I've been on council. And I've never been notified of any of them except the ones on Richmond Avenue, so I don't know that it's common practice to notify council members or at least this one. I would like to separate out number 31 where it says it's like two-thirds the way down. of 342 Preston Avenue to 340 Preston Avenue from there, and then all those single digits to 181 Richmond Avenue. That whole section, that's one street. The reason I'd like to separate that out as a separate resolution is it is unique. It's a 1920s, 30s bungalow street with bungalows. the single and double digit addresses are part of that like they are on Mentel Park and some of the other streets and really speaks to the culture and history of that street. At the very end of the street there I think are about four houses that have a 100 address, and I offer it as a compromise, changing them to two digits. But it's been that way since the 1930s when they were built. And the residents, again, it's not just changing the number. It's about just the whole atmosphere of that street. So I would like to separate that part out and make a separate resolution so we can vote on that separately. So moved. So is it clear? Is there a second? Second. Okay. A little clarification. Is it clear what's being asked? She mentioned the Preston Avenue. You did not want to include that. All the Richmond Avenue ones. Yes. I just stopped at Preston Avenue. I was just trying to because this all runs together. Understood. So if this motion passes, it will be reported out Thursday, and the resolution would come as two resolutions Thursday night on the docket. So, Glenda, I know you're holding your head. If the motion passes, can you be sure all three of you are on the same page about what the separation is? Any questions about the motion? Mr. Farmer. So am I right, you're pulling out Richmond Avenue because of its single-digitness, if it were, as it were? I'm pulling it out, yes, and I have never, ever objected to any one of these ever before. but because it is somewhat part of the historic or nature of that street. So by separating it out, your intention is to then vote it down? Well, I think there needs to be an opportunity for discussion, and council members can vote as they please. but I think that the neighbors, et cetera, need an opportunity to speak on that, and by separating it out, it won't bog down the rest of them. I'm trying to do it so it doesn't hold up anything else and we can still move forward and the council can vote whichever way they want to vote. As someone who used to represent those single-digit addresses, I agree with you. Well, thank you. Dr. Bluse. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think probably that Mr. Lucas could affirm that there have been many, many streets and areas in the city which go way back, where there's historical, cultural neighborhood identifications that have been, when it comes to changing addresses and street numbers, have been fairly wrenching. It's been my experience, too, in my district in two occasions, One of them fairly recent, where, as we know, people identify with their addresses, and we all do. So E911 works in that context to protect the public, to make it easier, more efficient, less prone to mistakes for first responders to get to the address they need to go when seconds count. And they have done this in a fairly politics-free arena. What worries me here is that council may get into micromanaging if this motion passes and if this is debated separately and so on, that we'll be getting into a situation where we're actually here interfering with the process of public safety. So I have great reservations about this motion and what we may be getting into, and I will not support it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless? I certainly don't know how this is micromanaging any more than any other changes we asked for. Like I say, there are several on here that are in my district. However, in this instance, it is hard to understand why three digits is safer than two digits. And there haven't been any instances that anybody's been able to give me where fire, police, whatever, could not find the address. So, again, for me it's kind of a historic preservation issue and that there's not been any instance where public safety has been compromised. And so I'm just advocating for my constituents. And I've never, like, Walton Avenue, there are a lot of these that are in my district. I have no issue with that. It's just this one street because of the historic nature of it, and the two-digit bungalows are a part of that. Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the motion? Mr. Lane. I don't believe that these addresses would have been put in the motion, nor would they have been presented to Council for approval unless all of the parties had already consented to that. So does that mean you've got to go back now and tell everybody we want to change it again? Is that essentially where we're going? Well, actually, our process is back in the beginning of 9-1, we brought changes individually, and it got very burdensome. So we do it every quarter. So you see groups four times, and this is one of our quarterly that we discussed. When we notify everyone on Richmond Avenue of this change, we did get a complaint. They did not go through the appeal process. We did talk with Ms. Lawless about doing a meeting with them, but that never came to be. So we had several discussions, but I think where she's going with this, she wants to talk about it separately than the rest, because there is going to be a lot of discussion on this one, contrary to a lot of the other ones in this packet. But back to what Mr. Blue says, we do have a committee that reviews these, and we sent a letter out, and then when people have some negative feedback, We discuss with them and go through an appeal process, and that is what I'm going to send out to you, that whole process, as Mr. Stenohan requested. Okay. If there's no other question, the motion on the floor is to separate Resolution No. 31 into two resolutions. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Okay. That motion passes. So, Council Member Lawless, will you work with Mr. Lucas and Ms. George to get the correct numbers separated? And what's the timeline on that for Thursday? For Thursday night. Thank you. Okay, now we're still on first reading of resolutions. Council Members, is there any other issue on first reading of resolutions? We'll move right on then to the second reading of ordinances on page 12. There are two. Is there anything you wish to remove, refer, ask questions about? All right. If not, we'll move to second reading of resolutions, pages 12, 13, and 14. I see no questions on that. So we will move right on to review of budget amendments, pages 15 through 18. Are there any questions on budget amendments? If not, we'll go to item five, agenda items. Is this item five, Council Member Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Council Member Stennett? Okay, thank you. I move the place on the docket under first readings of resolution, amending resolution 150-2011, to remove 400 McKenna Court and units A and B of 500 Shaftesbury Road from the changes to street names and property addresses. So moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. And did the recorder get those addresses in the motion? Okay. To remove those address changes. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Is there anything else? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, I'd like to give the gavel to Mr. Ellinger as I have a motion. Vice Mayor. I move to place on the docket for the May 26, 2011 Council meeting a resolution appointing James Edward Kemp, Joseph Daniel Reed, and Phil Wayne McConathy as reapportionment commissioners to lay off the district boundaries of the districts of the three fiscal court commissioners, three justices of the peace, magistrates, and three constables pursuant to KRS 67.045, and providing that the reapportionment commissioners shall be compensated in the amount of $200 each. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, that passes. Do you have any other motions? No. Then I will pass the Gableback. Thank you very much. Are there other items? If not, the NDF list is on pages 50 and 51 for your information. And we'll move along to Council Reports. If you'll log in, please, we'll go to that item. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a couple of things. Monday, Memorial Day, is Bike Lexington, and at noon is one of the good family events that we have is a 10-mile bike ride, police escorted, closed streets. So please come down to the new courthouse for Bike Lexington on June the 12th, which is the second Sunday of June. We are, again, closing the airport runway, their general aviation runway, 4,000-foot runway, to come out for a day of being together as a community. And blade bike, walk, push a stroller, this year will be there's a number of historical airplanes and police and fire equipment for kids. We encourage folks to bring their picnic lunch and just come and watch planes take off, if nothing else. It is unlike any event in America, and last year there were 15,000 people that came out to this event. It will go from 1 o'clock until 5 o'clock on that Sunday. I certainly want to encourage all of my counterparts here in the community at large to come out on June 12th. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Is there any other council report? Council Member Lawless. I just want to remind everybody that Lexington's Bike Progressive Dinner is tonight, starting at 6 o'clock. The Progressive Dinner introduces two new locations to the Bike Progressive Ride soundbar and Village Host. The purpose of the ride is to enjoy biking downtown with friends and support local businesses. Space is limited to the first 50 people, so if you're interested, at this point, since it's almost 6, it starts at Soundbar at 208 South Limestone, proceeds to Village Host, which is 431 Old Vine Street at 7, and concludes at 3rd Street Stuff at 257 North Limestone. And the Goodrich Neighborhood Association will meet tonight at 7 p.m. at the end of Goodrich Avenue. And a reminder to all that the farmer's market continues outdoors in Cheapside Park at the Fifth Third Pavilion and also on Southland Drive on Sundays from 10 to 2. and the next meeting of the Suburban Court Neighborhood Association, which is new, will be Monday, June 13th at 7.30 p.m. at the Good Foods Co-op. So everyone have a great Memorial Day weekend and be safe. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one announcement. Tomorrow night, Wednesday, May 25th at 7 p.m., the Spicewood Homeowners Association will meet in the Masterson Station Clubhouse. Again, that's 7 p.m. tomorrow night in the Masterson Station Clubhouse. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Does anyone else have a council report? If not, we'll hear from the public on issues not on the agenda. I think most of the public has left. Is there anyone who wishes to comment? If not, Council Member Ellinger has a motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing pending litigation. So moved. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. One, no. And we've been asked to have a two-minute, 60-second break. Thank you. It leaches out into the ground slowly. And then once the barrel is leached out and emptied, it's ready for the next storm. But if you have a big rainstorm, more than just a couple inches, it may need to overflow. And that's what this piece is for. Once the water reaches a certain height in the barrel, it will overflow, and you can direct that away from your house with any standard piping. We originally were encouraged when we formed our LLC to look at becoming a woman-owned business. And as we traveled, we heard that message consistently that being a small business, Being a small business, it was important to be certified because it gives your business legitimacy and credibility to people who are wanting to do business with you but want to make sure that you have a solid set of processes that can support the business that they would like for you to do on their behalf. We started a certification process shortly after I came to work here for a number of reasons. One is that certification verifies that a company is 51% owned and operated and controlled by a minority or woman on business.