# Budget COW- Links Report Out and Discussion - May 26, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 26, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2029 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2029?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-05-26 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 12,475 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Committee of the Whole for Budget met on May 26, 2011, at 3:00 p.m. at Fifth Floor, City Hall, with the Vice Mayor presiding. The committee considered 21 agenda items focused on departmental and organizational budgets. One motion was voted on during the meeting, and eight members of the public provided comments. Of the 21 items on the agenda, 20 were approved, including budgets for the Chief Administrative Officer, Community Development, Human Resources, Planning, Risk Management, Enterprise Solutions, Computer Services, Government Communications, Commerce Lexington, Downtown Lexington Corporation, Downtown Development Authority, the Lyric Theater, the Office of Internal Audit, the Department of Law, the Property Evaluation Administrator, the Commonwealth's Attorney, the Chief Information Officer, the Council Office, and the Citizen's Advocate. Additionally, the committee approved the Purchase of Development Rights. One item—Downtown Arts Center Management—was deferred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 26, 2011: **Council Members:** - Council Member Lane - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Martin - Council Member Kay - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Hanson - Council Member Lawless - Council Member McCord - Council Member Ford - Council Member Myers - Council Member Henson - Council Member Sullivan **Staff and Other Attendees:** - CAO Maloney - David O'Neill - Sheila Hupp - Jeanette Williams - Johnny Martinez No council members or attendees were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Adjourn** A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by a Council Member. The motion passed by voice vote at [timestamp: 01:26:21]. All twelve council members voted in favor of adjournment: - Council Member Lane - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Martin - Council Member Kay - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Hanson - Council Member Lawless - Council Member McCord - Council Member Ford - Council Member Myers - Council Member Henson - Council Member Sullivan No council members voted against the motion, and there were no abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed multiple budget amendments and appropriations across several departments: **Appropriations** * $35,000 for additional expenditure for professional services in the Division of Enterprise Solutions through an outside services provider * $40,000 added to a professional service account for outside services provided by various consultants **Amendments to Existing Budgets** * $182,547 for reinstatement of positions in Government Communications, including a producer, audiovisual specialist, and graphic designer * $4,700 additional funding for LexiCol overtime for emergency situations * $3,600 annually requested for an employee hotline in Internal Audit * $150,000 requested for an IT audit to be conducted by an external CPA firm * $26,000 added to civil service salaries line item for a part-time Citizen's Advocate position **Budget Reductions** * $442,424 elimination of unallocated funds from the Chief Information Officer budget * $76,042 savings from elimination of the budget analyst position in the Council Office * $5,000 savings from elimination of the caucus room copier in the Council Office * $20,000 reduction in community development grant match funding from the Community Development department The financial actions reflected a mix of service enhancements, staffing adjustments, and cost-saving measures across multiple divisions and departments. ## Public Comment Several council members and city employees provided testimony regarding proposed budget cuts and staffing decisions. **Council Member Henson** [timestamp: 00:10:51] questioned the status of the vacant graphic designer position and stressed the importance of having official documentation before making public statements about employee departures. **Council Member Stinnett** [timestamp: 00:19:32] emphasized that the supplemental pay issue should remain open for discussion and reiterated support for reinstating the strategic planner position, suggesting it be elevated to a commissioner level to better align with long-term planning goals. **Council Member Martin** [timestamp: 00:25:31] expressed concern about cutting supplemental pay for computer services, warning that losing institutional knowledge could lead to higher long-term costs, and supported the strategic planner role as vital for visionary urban development. **Council Member Farmer** [timestamp: 00:30:00] agreed that the supplemental pay issue requires further discussion, noting that losing technical expertise could cost more than the savings, and emphasized the need to preserve institutional knowledge. **Johnny Martinez**, a Government Communications employee [timestamp: 01:02:17], testified that the remaining staff cannot sustain the current workload alone and warned that cutting the graphic designer position would degrade the city's public image and increase outsourcing costs. **David O'Neill**, Property Valuation Administrator [timestamp: 01:15:09], argued that a 10% cut to the PVA budget would force layoffs despite most funds being fixed costs, and emphasized the office's role in increasing city revenue without raising tax rates. **Council Member McCord** [timestamp: 01:18:25] expressed concern that the committee was not receiving accurate or complete information, particularly regarding staffing and programming comparisons with Louisville, and warned that misinformation undermines the council's budgetary responsibility. **Council Member Sullivan** [timestamp: 01:24:00] presented data showing that Lexington produces significantly more programming than Louisville, including live coverage of city meetings, and argued that the city's higher staffing levels are justified by the breadth and depth of services provided. ## Contested Items The May 26, 2011 meeting featured three significant areas of disagreement among council members, employees, and administration. **Graphic Designer Position and Staffing Cuts** A heated discussion centered on the proposed elimination of the graphic designer position. Employees and council members argued against the cut, contending that remaining staff could not sustain the workload if the position was removed. They expressed concern that eliminating this role would degrade the organization's public image and increase outsourcing costs, offsetting any budget savings from the elimination. **PVA Budget Reduction** A procedural dispute arose over a proposed 10% cut to the PVA budget. The PVA director raised significant concerns about the impact on operations, arguing that the majority of the office's funds were fixed costs. The director contended that the 10% reduction would force layoffs despite the office's demonstrated track record of generating revenue, questioning the logic of cutting a productive department. **Comparison with Louisville** Council members were divided on whether Lexington's government communications output was comparable to Louisville's. The disagreement involved conflicting data regarding programming hours, staffing levels, and service scope. This comparison became contentious because council members expressed skepticism about the accuracy of administrative claims being used to justify the proposed cuts, with the conflicting information preventing consensus on whether Lexington's operations were truly comparable to or different from Louisville's. ## Chief Administrative Officer Budget Recommendation The committee reviewed and accepted the mayor's proposed budget for the Chief Administrative Officer [timestamp: 00:08:03]. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee approved the Chief Administrative Officer budget recommendation without requesting any modifications to the proposal. The budget was acknowledged as being aligned with the overall fiscal strategy, indicating that the committee found the proposed allocation appropriate and consistent with broader budgetary priorities. The outcome of this agenda item was approval. ## Division of Community Development Budget The committee considered the mayor's proposed budget for the Division of Community Development [timestamp: 00:08:03]. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee accepted the proposed budget without amendments. This approval affirmed the department's funding priorities for the fiscal year, indicating that the committee found the budget allocation appropriate and aligned with community development goals. The budget was approved as presented. ## Division of Human Resources Budget The committee reviewed the Division of Human Resources Budget as presented by the mayor [timestamp: 00:09:42]. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee accepted the mayor's proposed budget with one amendment. The modification eliminated the senior manager for total compensation position, as this role was determined to be no longer required. The budget was approved with this amendment in place. ## Division of Planning Budget The committee reviewed the Division of Planning budget as part of the mayor's proposed budget allocation. [timestamp: 00:10:17] Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Budget Action** The committee accepted the mayor's proposed budget for the Division of Planning. However, the committee eliminated a $105,284 line item designated for a planning manager position focused on strategic planning. **Rationale for Elimination** The decision to remove this funding was based on two primary concerns: - Lack of a clear operational plan for the position - The position had remained unfilled for several years **Outcome** The Division of Planning budget was approved with the $105,284 line item removed. ## Purchase of Development Rights The committee addressed the mayor's proposed budget for the purchase of development rights during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:10:53]. **Outcome** The committee approved the proposed budget for the purchase of development rights program. **Key Points** Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee recognized the program's important role in preserving open space and supporting the municipality's long-term land use goals. ## Division of Risk Management [timestamp: 00:10:53] The committee reviewed the mayor's proposed budget for the Division of Risk Management. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee accepted the proposed budget without requesting any changes. This approval affirmed the Division of Risk Management's role in managing city-wide risk exposure. **Outcome:** The budget for the Division of Risk Management was approved as proposed. ## Division of Enterprise Solutions [timestamp: 00:11:26] Council Member Lane presented this agenda item regarding the Division of Enterprise Solutions. The committee recommended an additional $35,000 in funding for professional services. The rationale provided was the need for ongoing external support to maintain system integrity and service delivery. The recommendation was approved. ## Computer Services The committee reviewed the Computer Services budget item during this portion of the meeting [timestamp: 00:11:57]. **Outcome** The committee accepted the mayor's proposed budget for Computer Services and approved a recommendation that the Human Resources Department conduct a study on IT employee compensation to ensure competitiveness. **Key Participant** Council Member Lane was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Division of Government Communications [timestamp: 00:11:57] The committee presented a recommendation to reinstate three positions within the Division of Government Communications: a producer, an audiovisual specialist, and a graphic designer. Additionally, the committee recommended allocating $4,700 for LexiCol overtime expenses. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The committee emphasized that these positions and the overtime funding were necessary to maintain essential public communication services. The recommendation was approved. ## Commerce Lexington The committee presented a proposal to reallocate $457,210 from the general economic development fund to Commerce Lexington. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:13:29] The funding reallocation was recommended to align resources with Commerce Lexington's strategic role in economic development. The committee approved the proposal. ## Downtown Lexington Corporation The committee considered a funding allocation for the Downtown Lexington Corporation during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:13:29]. **Funding Recommendation** The committee recommended allocating $42,710 from the economic development fund to the Downtown Lexington Corporation. This allocation reflects the organization's role in downtown revitalization efforts and business support activities. **Key Speaker** Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The allocation was approved. ## Downtown Development Authority The committee considered a proposal to allocate $211,230 from the economic development fund to the Downtown Development Authority. Council Member Lane presented this agenda item. The allocation was intended to support the Downtown Development Authority's core mission of downtown development and redevelopment. The committee recommended approval of the funding. The proposal was approved. [timestamp: 00:13:29] ## Downtown Arts Center Management The committee addressed funding for Downtown Arts Center management during this agenda item. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion regarding the $91,310 needed to manage the facility. The committee noted that this funding amount was not included in the current proposal being considered. Rather than resolving the matter during the regular agenda, the committee determined that the Downtown Arts Center management funding would be handled as a late item to be addressed separately. The outcome of this discussion was that the matter was deferred, meaning it was postponed for consideration at a later time rather than decided upon during this meeting. ## Lyric Theater The committee considered the mayor's proposed budget for the Lyric Theater during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:16:15]. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion. The committee voted to accept the mayor's proposed budget for the Lyric Theater without any modifications. This approval affirmed the theater's continued role in cultural programming and community engagement. The budget was approved as presented. ## Office of Internal Audit The committee presented recommendations for the Office of Internal Audit, with Council Member Lane serving as a key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 00:16:46]. The presentation focused on two primary funding requests: * **Employee Hotline**: $3,600 for an employee hotline * **External IT Audit**: $150,000 for an external IT audit of the PeopleSoft system The rationale for these expenditures centered on addressing fraud risk and ensuring system integrity within the organization's information technology infrastructure. The committee's recommendations were approved. ## Department of Law The committee reviewed the mayor's proposed budget for the Department of Law. [timestamp: 00:17:52] **Budget Proposal** The proposal included a $35,000 increase for legal staff reorganization. This increase was designated as a one-time cost to support structural improvements within the department. **Outcome** The committee approved the proposed budget. **Key Participant** Council Member Lane was the key speaker on this agenda item. ## Property Evaluation Administrator The committee considered the mayor's proposed budget for the Property Evaluation Administrator position during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:18:27]. Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this budget proposal. The committee recognized the critical role that the Property Evaluation Administrator office plays in property valuation and maintaining the stability of the tax base. The proposed budget was approved by the committee. ## Commonwealth's Attorney The committee reviewed the mayor's proposed budget for the Commonwealth's Attorney office. [timestamp: 00:18:27] Council Member Lane presented the budget proposal to the committee. The discussion focused on fiscal management and budget efficiency within the office. A key highlight of the budget review was an $11,250 rebate resulting from overbudgeting in the previous fiscal period. The committee expressed appreciation for this rebate, which demonstrated improved fiscal efficiency and more accurate budget forecasting by the office. The committee voted to accept the mayor's proposed budget for the Commonwealth's Attorney. The outcome was approved. ## Chief Information Officer The committee discussed the Chief Information Officer budget during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:18:27] Council Member Lane presented a recommendation to eliminate $442,424 in unallocated funds from the CIO budget. The rationale cited for this reduction centered on the need for fiscal discipline and better accountability in budget management. The committee approved this recommendation. ## Council Office The committee discussed budget adjustments for Council Office operations. [timestamp: 00:14:38] Council Member Lane presented recommendations that included three key changes: * Eliminating the caucus room copier * Removing the budget analyst position * Adding $40,000 to a professional services account to support external consulting The item was approved by the committee. ## Citizen's Advocate The committee discussed the establishment of a Citizen's Advocate position during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:15:44]. **Recommendation** The committee recommended creating a part-time position for a Citizen's Advocate. To support this new role, $26,000 was allocated to fund a civil service employee until a permanent appointee is named. **Key Speaker** Council Member Lane participated in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The proposal was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript The End Thank you. Go ahead and convene our meeting. Today is May 26, 2011, and this is the 3 o'clock Committee of the Whole for Budget. And we're still having our links reports. And so on the schedule today is the report out of the general government link. And I believe this would be Council Member Ed Lang's time to speak. You chaired this link, correct? Welcome. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The other members on the general government budget link were Councilmember Doug Martin and Councilmember Kevin Stennett. And we were assisted by my aide, Scott Seymour, Councilmember Martin's aide, Jonathan Hollinger, and Councilmember Stennett's aide, Nina Melvin. So I'd like to thank everybody for their help on our work. We can go to the first overhead. And this is a quick summary of the different departments of government that we reviewed. And I'm not going to read them all out, but you can see that we have quite a number of people to meet with. Next overhead, please. Okay, on our report out, we are accepting the budget recommendation for the chief administrative officer, item number one. We're accepting the mayor's proposed budget for the Division of Community Development, item number two. We're accepting the Division of Historic Preservation's report out with the recommendation that the board consider activating a fee to help cover some of the costs to cover the services that it provides. There will be an application fee for each item that came before the board for review. and we were hoping that maybe that would generate around $40,000, but we did not put this money in the budget. This would be something they could evaluate on their own. Item number four, the Division of Human Resources. We accepted the mayor's proposed budget as amended, and that amendment including eliminating the senior manager for total compensation because that position is no longer required. Next item, please. Overhead. All right. In the Division of Planning, we accepted the mayor's proposed budget, with the exception that we've eliminated the line item for the planning manager for strategic planning at a cost of $105,284. There were two thoughts, I believe, that the committee had. One, this position has been unfunded and unfilled for six or seven years, and there wasn't a specific plan of how this position would be utilized. So, you know, I guess we would be open to having the council review that at a later time if the administrative would like to bring that forward for additional consideration. By the way, if anybody, any of these, I'm going to go ahead and go through the report, and then if any parties would like to speak to any of the items, I think they could just come back. Or if you'd like to interrupt the presentation, I'll be open to that also. In the area of purchase of development rights, we accepted the mayor's proposed budget. Division of Risk Management, we accepted the mayor's proposed budget. The Division of Enterprise Solutions, we're recommending the additional expenditure of $35,000 for professional services. There is a document that I think has been circulated that we just received earlier. This is an outside services fee for an annual fee for the continuation of professional services. And if there's a question on that, we could ask Mr. Cottle to come up and speak to that. Anybody have a question on that now? Okay, we're just going to go on through, and Mr. Cottle, you can speak to it after we complete. Okay, we accepted the mayor's proposed budget for computer services, and we are suggesting that the Human Resources Department conduct a study of compensation for IT employees. Item 10, the Division of Government Communications. We recommended the reinstatement of positions for producer, audiovisual specialist, and graphic designer for the amount of $182,547. And we recommended the additional $4,700 for LexiCol overtime. and that would be specifically for things like ice storms, situations where LexiCol would be called in on duty because of an emergency situation. And other than that, we've accepted the mayor's proposed budget. Now, I might say that CAO Maloney has advised me that there have already been a couple of job changes in that area, and he's going to speak to that line item budget when we come back for a comment. The Mayor, also the Mayor, Chief of Staff, that was accepted as proposed by the Mayor, and the same for the special events. That was accepted as proposed by the Mayor's budget. Okay, in the order in the area of economic development, there were line-item funds for 457 under economic development and $42,710 under downtown development and $211,230 under downtown development. But we have deleted all those from the department or the chief development officer's area, and we are recommending that those amounts be funded, 457,210 for Commerce Lexington, item 14, 42,710 for the Downtown Lexington Corporation, item 15. Next overhead, please. and $211,230 for the Downtown Development Authority, item 16. Under item 17, that item was not funded, and we've been advised that the administration will bring forward a late item in the amount of $91,310 to compensate for the management of the Downtown Arts Center. The World Trade Center item 18 was per the mayor's proposed budget. The council clerk per the mayor's proposed budget. The county attorney per the mayor's proposed budget. Next overhead, please. The council office, we are recommending the elimination of the caucus room copier to save $5,000 to reduce operating expenses in several account lines for a total of $6,760 to eliminate the budget analyst position, and that is budgeted in the amount of $76,042, and to add $40,000 to a professional service account to allow for outside services. That would be for a total. I guess that's, there might be a typo there. I believe it was for $40,000. The citizen's advocate, the council did vote to make this a part-time position. And so in order to accommodate that, we have added $26,000 to the civil service salaries line item. And this is to provide for the civil service employee in that department who would be serving in that position until an appointed official was made to take the position as citizen's advocate. And the appointed official is a non-merit employee. So we've allocated $40,000 for that position to be budgeted. Now, there should be a compensating offset because if we extend the civil service employee, the amount of the part-time fees would be reduced for the appointed official because they wouldn't be working for the full 12-month period. But that would be the maximum expenditure for that. Can we go to item 23, please? The Lyric Theater, we accepted the Mayor's proposed budget for the Office of Internal Audit. We are requesting a line item addition of $3,600 a year. This is for an employee hotline that would allow employees to call to an independent hotline service where they can make any suggestions, recommendations, or any fraud allegations that could be investigated by internal audit. And then there's a request for $150,000 for an IT audit by an outside firm. This actually would be a professional CPA firm, and specifically it would be to audit our PeopleSoft system to look for any irregularities in the software, any potential fraud. And this has not been done since we've installed PeopleSoft. And considering that we have almost a quarter of a billion dollars being dispersed through this system, excuse me, a half a billion dollars, let me restate that, We felt that this is a major risk that needs to be evaluated, and so we've requested that funding. And then we've accepted the mayor's proposed budget as amended. Item 25, Department of Law. The mayor proposed to move HR to law. So that's budgeted in there. and also the mayor's proposed budget. It's increased by $35,000 for planned reorganization of legal staff. That's a one-time cost. And other than that, we've accepted the mayor's proposed budget as amended. Property Evaluation Administrator, we've accepted the mayor's proposed budget. Commonwealth's attorney, I'd like to thank Ray Lawson. And Larson, when he came into our meeting, he found that we had overbudgeted $11,250, and he gave us a rebate, so we appreciate his input on that. And on the chief information officer, we recommended there's a line item for $442,424 that those unallocated funds be eliminated from the CIO budget. There is a summary sheet that we can put up that shows you the set of the basis. Essentially, we've eliminated or reduced expenses in the amount of $1,496,070. And on the other line item, we've recommended the additional expense, the $1,188,000, which is a savings of $308,070 for budgetary expense. And I believe that concludes the LINC's work. And again, I'd like to thank my co-members for their assistance and help on preparing this report. And I think we're open now to any questions that may be brought to our attention. Thank you very much, Council Member Lane. Council Members, do you have any questions? Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to add a couple comments, if I might, since I was a member of the link, just some food for thought out there. First of all, the supplemental pay issue was mainly in our link. I know we didn't give a recommendation to put it back, but I think it should still be as my individual thinking on this is it should still be out there for discussion in a couple weeks when we start going back through everything, and it should still be on the table. So I just didn't want anyone out there to think it's totally dead, that we didn't recommend putting it back. There's still some information we need to get. And just for instance, I think the director of Enterprise Solutions is on there, and it shouldn't be, because I know this council approved his full salary at some point, or at least I thought we did. So things like that need to be fully bid to see who's supposed to be on the list, who shouldn't be, and so we can make a final determination as to what dollar amount that would cost if we want to do bring all those employees or allow them to keep their pay. The second issue is I know there's some other recommendations in the report, like on the PVA. Some of you have been on council the last few years, have known that that office has stepped up and voluntarily cut their own budget before they were asked by administrations, and cutting another 10 percent again this year will have, in my opinion, again, an adverse effect on their budget. So I want to continue to look at that operation, at least make them the same as they were last year, because they've taken some bigger cuts than other outside agencies have taken. over the years. And then the last issue is the strategic planner in planning. I know the mayor put this in there for a lot of good reasons. I know it's been vacant, I think, only three years, if I'm not right, Chris. Right? Three years, four years? About four years. The thinking on this is, I think there's a real opportunity, and a lot of us have heard it even back when we did the, if you remember some of you, the six pillars of what this council wanted to go for, visioning-wise, and looking for a world-class planner. I think there's an opportunity here to try to do something different while the economy's on a downturn, hopefully on an uptick sometime this year, but something to do something different in terms of planning going forward and be able to get someone in here with some visionary expertise and some urban planner skills. So I think there's an opportunity maybe to create either another commissioner position out there that can be over the whole planning initiative throughout government and allow working with the mayor's office, of course, and the council to maybe do something different. So that's still on the table, I would think, maybe just in a different format than what it was presented in the budget. So those are just a couple of things I wanted to bring out that maybe we still need to think about as a group. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Vice Mayor, could we also let Mr. Martin, as a member of site, a couple of comments, too? I know he has a couple of thoughts he wanted to add in there. Council Member Martin? I'll wait until the next folks speak. Thanks. Okay. Council Member Kay? Council Member Stinnett already addressed a little bit of my question, but I was also concerned that this is a position that people have often spoken about as being needed in planning. It's not been filled, my understanding, as because there were budgetary constraints. There still are. But I guess I'd like to hear a little more about why this would not be useful at this time. Okay. Well, I think that the committee was not, like, opposed to the position. The issue that we were dealing with is that it was not really specific how the position would be structured within the operation of the government, whether it be under the mayor's control, under the planning control, if it would be the commissioner of planning. It would be tied in with the Downtown Development Authority. There was a lot of questions about how we would use that person, so that's why we pulled it out so that we could discuss it in more detail and make some finite plan and decision on that. And we felt that it was really a great deal of the mayor's responsibility to make the recommendation to us to how to use that person rather than for us to tell the mayor how to use that person. Thank you. Would it be appropriate to get a comment from either Chris King or Mr. Maloney on this topic? Welcome, Mr. Maloney. Hello. As you know, this is one of the mayors, and his first start was to do something. He wants to work with planning. He wants to have a strategic planning, a visionary. and we thought this was a good opportunity and also what Mr. Stenet is saying too I mean I think we're on the right track of where the mayor wants to go with planning but the reason we thought this would be a good fit is because we are getting ready to do a lot of work in planning. We're taking zoning out of building inspection and putting it in the plan and we think this will be something that this person or whoever it is oversee that too because that has an impact on what the future is with our zoning and also with our planning. We thought this would be a good time to bring somebody like that in to help Chris out because when we move zoning over and plus as the economy in the downturn, and you all know right now we're getting ready to do the comprehensive plan update, we have an opportunity that we haven't had in a long time. We know that everybody's on board, that we're not going outside the urban service for the first time in a long time. We're really dealing with the infield redevelopment, and we think we need a visionary to make that happen. And bringing somebody in that capability at this time would be important. And I think Council Member Stenet has, with the commissioner or with the planning, we need someone like that with that kind of background. So either way, we feel we would like either one of those. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate my fellow LINC members, Councilmember Stinnett and Councilmember Lane. We went through a lot of meetings, have wonderful input from all the folks who came to talk to us. I just had a couple sort of personal observations. One, I am concerned about the recommendation for supplemental pay for commuter services. Our computer services are one of those sort of core critical enterprise functions that if we allow it to go, we could find ourselves spending more money trying to save money. And I think as a government, we've gotten to the point where we have cut to the bone. This is our fourth year, I guess, really slicing this budget up. And I'm very concerned that, and I do know we have to cut the budget to come and bring the ship into port, as they say. But I'm concerned that we're going to end up making some crucial mistakes that we're going to pay for later. And so, and having folks in a highly technical expertise, such as computer services, where we have many different systems trying to work with each other and new systems coming online. I was talking with Mr. Nugent just a little earlier today. about the new system coming online with water resources. So I want to make sure that we try to keep the expertise we have. We have an institutional knowledge in a lot of these folks and intimate knowledge of our systems, and to bring new folks in at a lesser pay, perhaps with less qualifications than we have now, I think would be of concern. I also supported the strategic planner for planning, And because I think I made a recommendation to the council that we adopt this last year, and the council didn't choose to go with that, but I think that we need more thinking about the future. We need more dreaming about how can we better design Lexington to make it the kind of place where people and businesses want to be. And I go back to the example of a picture I saw of New York Central Park. It was kind of rolling green like we have here in Lexington, but it was a wrought iron sort of bridge over this little pathway. And so I think the difference between Lexington and New York was that they had some vision to be able to put some design elements in their things. And so I would like to see the strategic planner, and I, too, am open to how we would work that in, whether at a commissioner level or something else. As far as the office of the mayor, last year I made a recommendation that we bring in an entrepreneur liaison because I think we have one of the core recommendations of the Angelou study was that startups and entrepreneurship is going to be a fundamental way that Lexington grows in the future. And I think that we need to have someone on point really at a similar level to our economic development director who can really help the city create a culture of entrepreneurship that I think was going to be necessary to work with this community and to the types of financial incentives and programs that's going to put this forward. Another item is that last year I made a recommendation that we add an additional urban planner for the DDA. hey, Mr. Maloney made an excellent point about our need for good urban planning, and right now most of that's going on in the downtown development authority. And so I'd like to see giving them an additional urban planner so that they can continue to work on that and perhaps expand the scope of their services to not just the downtown but the Lexington Development Authority, and I think something similar to what they have up in Louisville. And last and not least, I understand that the PVA is going to have lay folks off if they don't get the extra $26,000. So I just thought I'd let the council member know that PVA David O'Neill is here, and I think he has made the point that they are, in essence, enhancing the revenues of the city because of the efficient way they're running their office, they're making sure the properties are kept up to date, and they're, in fact, increasing revenues because of that. So I think keeping them staffed, I think it just helps our bottom line. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to thank the Link for their work and their excellent report. Following up on some of the comments here, and Vice Mayor, I'm not sure how we'll move into the reconciliation phase of all of this, but I agree the supplemental pay issue will need a different airing than what we are able to give to it today because I believe there is a distinct possibility that we would lose expertise that would cost us more to rehire in a different capacity, and the savings may be outpassed by the amount of money that we'll end up spending in the long run over that. But I don't believe we can vet it all here today, but I think it should be part of our following discussion. Council Member Stennett, I wanted to follow up on your comments about a different apparatus or a different commissioner in planning, or would that be a commissioner with planning and historic preservation and maybe something else under it then? Is that okay, Chair? Yes. Okay. That's fine. I think if you're asking me personally, I think, you know, my thoughts would be that it should be a commissioner-type level. If we're really going to get serious in Lexington, Kentucky, about planning and development and doing it right going forward, that putting it under the job description we've used in government for years is not going to get it done. So making it a commissioner level that planning, zoning, PDR, historic preservation would report to, they would just be the quarterback, for instance, and look at the bigger picture of items, not necessarily technical pieces of each of those, but more the quarterback. And, you know, when we have companies come to town, we don't have that one person in government necessarily that can work with that company or those individuals. And it would be a good place to start. It's something we haven't tried. We've tried a lot of other things out there, some successful, some not. So that would be what I would think could work. Time will tell. But I think it also gives the mayor an opportunity to go out there and find a world-class plan or another city or where else. You may find maybe here right here in this government, maybe right here in Lexington. I know on Council Member Blues' task force, there's some great minds on there that are helping with downtown design. Some of those folks would be great in that role. So I think it just gives us more of an opportunity and more flexibility to get the right fit for our city in a time when we're redoing the comp plan, when development has slowed down to the point where I think we can really rethink this. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And then Council Member Lane in the reconciliation page here kind of walked me through the moving the economic development funds out of three different areas and then rearranging them into Commerce Lexington, the Downtown Lexington Corporation, and Downtown Development Authority. Okay. You know, essentially those line items were already in the budget, but they were just on a number in there, and there was no numbers, you know, for the actual entities that would perform the services. So what we did is we basically took the money for economic development, and that was, I think, 457,000, and allocated that to Commerce Lexington. The money for the downtown Lexington Development Authority, we put it in its line item. And for the downtown Lexington Corporation, we put the line item in there. So we didn't create any money. We just merely moved it around in the budget. So were these funds that they would have had before or used in the past? Well, these items were in the budget, and that were the mayor's estimates for the expenditures for those line items. I don't have the budget in front of me, but I would say you could go back and look at those line item numbers and you'll see the information in the budget. Well, then if you shift that around like under Commerce Lexington, do they end up having more than they would have had last year or 10% less? That would be 10% than they had. All these got 10% less than last year. So those are all 10% less numbers. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Lane, I had a question about the citizen's advocate position. And what's going to happen with our current? Can you explain or help me understand? Okay, that's a little bit of a complex issue, but this is my understanding of it. But our current employee is a civil servant, has seniority and has a merit status, and has job security. The citizen's advocate is a non-merit position that's appointed by the council and could be fired at will, and there's no seniority or merit status there. So there are two different line items. So we budgeted for the merit employee to remain in that position until such time as we hired the new citizen's advocate. At that juncture, and I would say I think our current merit employee appears to be doing a very good job, so I would say she would be eligible to transfer to another position in the government, and that would be an HR matter to work on that. So this position becomes part-time, then her position would go part-time, correct? No, her position would be eliminated at that time. Okay. She wouldn't remain as acting if we pass it going part-time? No, ma'am. After we hired the citizen's advocate, that would be the only position in the citizen's advocate. I was talking about before you hire, what happens in the meantime while she's the acting? Well, that's why we put in a budget line item to fund that position in the interim period so she would be compensated while we're looking for a part-time citizens advocate. And her compensation would be equivalent to what she's earning now? Yes, ma'am, it would. Okay, thank you. Council Member Lawless? Thank you. I was getting my pen. Is there somebody from the administration that could speak to, I too am confused about the moving around of the Commerce Lexington and downtown development authority. Kevin is under the weather, so I'll help as much as I can. with the economic development being a top priority for the council and the mayor and the city and the region, we felt that it was the best course of action to propose a placeholder number for those three entities. The DDA money and the DLC money was categorized under one group. I think it was called downtown development funds. Is that correct? The other was economic development fund. You might ask why. We basically, these priorities are strategically linked and should be led and managed with these strategic links in mind. So the structure and the funding would have followed the strategies, and we were still in negotiations and discussions with Commerce Lexington, DDA, and DLC at the time, and still are. The discussions continue to be engaging, productive, and encouraging. We're very close to reaching final agreements with all three, and we will be bringing those specific proposals on our late item list on the 7th. Thank you. The other question I had was reducing the community development grant match by $20,000. That's a good question, Council Member Lawless. That is because that was match funding, and we were advised that they did not need that money because they had already gotten the match that was necessary. They don't need that additional money for the match portion. So that was their reduction, not ours. Okay. Okay, and then back to Council Member Stenet's comment about time for us to have a commissioner-level planner for the urban boundary. I agree. I agree. And the Downtown Development Authority kind of deals with downtown development and it seems to kind of historically pick and choose which projects, et cetera, it's going to work with. So are Council Member Stinnett? You always listen. Can you speak to your thoughts about that? I really don't honestly have any right to second about that issue. Okay. I think I said what the thoughts were at the moment a few minutes ago, and I mean there's nothing else I would add to it right now. Okay. Thank you. I don't mind saying a couple more words on that issue. You know, I didn't go into detail on this, but, you know, I believe too that, you know, having a sort of a master planner or Commissioner of Planning or somebody to help us in our long-range planning as an appropriate position. And we do have some surplus funding left over in our at length report. So the question would be, though, is, you know, what does the mayor want to do? That was, to me, the biggest question, is where does he feel that this position would work best for him and where does he want to place it within the operation of the government? So that was sort of an unknown issue. And so I'm just saying we're open to funding that, and I think we'd like to get some feedback from the mayor as to what he likes and what would be best from his perspective. That's the reason we just sort of held that money back for the time being. And I think that Mr. Stennett, Mr. Martin, and I all had the same feeling. It's just we weren't sure which way to go, if you follow me. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to follow up on Mr. Inman for a second. On those three items that we moved back from the new account numbers to the original account numbers, I just want to make sure everyone understands the line items they were in were created for new budgeting line item numbers. We moved them back to their original numbers that they have been in the budget. That's all we simply did. It doesn't change what the focus of the money will be. It doesn't change, you know, how the money will be spent by those organizations. What dictates that is the PSA that has to come before council. And you mentioned you're going to bring some kind of late item. Are you changing the dollar amounts to those groups? Is that what you're referring to? Because you can't bring the PSA, obviously, with the budget. No, I failed to add that, but the final funding is expected to remain consistent with the mayor's proposed budget, a 10% reduction for each group. But then what are you bringing in as a late item, I guess? Well, we're just going to bring the figure forward as our official proposal, just as you put it in your budget. Okay, so changing the accounting number does it? Well, changing the accounting number was proposed from finance because if we eliminated an account number for Commerce Lexington, for example, we couldn't go back and historically track anything that we'd given them in the past. I know that sounds crazy, but that's what the system was telling us. Is that correct? We're just doing the same thing you're proposing. We're moving it back to that original account. So we just want to make sure in the budget that the accounting is appropriate. So we're moving the dollars back. We're doing the same thing. Okay, because, again, that's the way we track it, honestly. We give to those organizations, and we can always go back and pull that number. And that's what we're doing on the late item list, just to clarify that, because then we knew it was a question. Okay. And then I think Leslie Jarvis is here. One of the employees that we recommended bring back, a graphics designer, is he still employed here at LFUCG? So that's another item we can change here. I think he's already found another job. He did. I don't know if he has actually physically left, but yes, he did find another job. So he has given final notice, so that money can be, we need to amend that then probably, just so the council is aware of that on one position of graphics designer. It was three total. So it's one's already found another job. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think Mr. Lane had a comment as a follow-up. I'll yield to him until he. Thank you, Council Member Martin. Just as a follow-up, I didn't go into a lot of detail, but we have had several meetings talking about the economic development process, and it's my understanding that what the mayor wanted to do was to refund those items and move them into those accounts. So we were in agreement with that, and so that's why we took that approach on it. And then the other thing I was going to mention is that, Mr. Maloney, you indicated you might like to speak to any personnel issues in the communications area. Do you want to touch on that today or not? We want to give you an update on some information we've brought to the link. Sheila and I, we've done some research, but I'm going to have Sheila go ahead and give you some information that why we think we want to go back to the original plan, so I'll be glad to let her explain it. And just to clarify, the gentleman that was in the graphic designer position has already left the position and has accepted another position, leaving the two other positions that were recommended for layoffs filled and the other one vacant at this time. And I've spoken with the gentleman that serves as the other graphic designer, and I asked him if there was a workload that he could handle, if he could manage it. And he said that as long as people gave him plenty of notice, he would be able to manage it. He said that he has turned people away recently because of very short turnaround time, so we're working on that. Glenn Brown and I are also working on a transition plan with the department in the event both of those other positions are continued to be laid off so that we can make sure there's a continuity of services and that there are no negative impacts for either of the three divisions within government communications. I can take any questions if you have any at this time, but I would like to recommend that we move forward with the Mayor's proposed budget, that we go ahead and eliminate the two additional positions that you recommended to put back in, because we do feel, compared to other cities, that we do have a high number of producers and a high number of people in the Public Information Office, compared to a city our size or even larger, and that we can, through streamlining and efficiencies, actually provide higher quality service and programming through streamlining. Mr. Martin, were you finished? I'm not quite sure I started yet. I think Mr. Lane is still. Mr. Lane took your time. Do you need some more time? Okay, good. Is there anyone else who wishes to ask questions? Council Member Kay. Yes, I would like to go back to the question of the economic development funds. I'm still not clear. I gather that the numbers for accounting need to be changed back to the way they were. I guess the question in my mind is what now is being negotiated with Commerce Lexington and DDA? Basically the structure of how the mayor and Commerce Lexington will work together on economic development. And the other portion of that is the structure of DDA and DLC. Are there efficiencies that we can find from sharing support staff and resources in those two organizations? They're already housed in the same facility, so there might be further continued efficiencies that we can find. On top of that, I probably shouldn't go into much detail. Jeff, if you'd like to add anything there, you're more than welcome to. Or Renee? You're the Jeff. Apparently so. I think as the background of where we've been in our negotiations and discussions with particularly the chamber I'm familiar with and have been involved in them along with Kevin, the issue we're really going to continue to negotiate some is exactly what interaction is going to occur between the city and the chamber as far as the economic development efforts of the chamber. And this has been a process that started initially. It had its ups and downs, the Angelou report and the problems associated with it, then getting a good report, our interactions, and where we exactly wanted the involvement of the city, where the mayor wanted it on economic development. We've met with officials there several times, and I think we're very comfortable with the dollar amount now at $457,000. I think the chamber and the board of directors there is in agreement that that's a good amount. We're still in some discussions as to how part of that money within that 457 will be expended and what additional contributions the Chamber might be making. One topic of discussion is do we need an additional person brought in for the economic development efforts of the Chamber? And would that person be the Chamber's person? Would it be somebody reported to the Mayor and to the Council? what would that role be? We've had some concerns, particularly about the front end of the economic development process, the recruitment end, getting people and businesses here. We found that the Chamber does an excellent job in most of what they do. We thought, and I think they were coming around to our point of view, there might be some need to look at part of the process and maybe get somebody additional to address that and get them on board in some capacity. But that's really the only outstanding issue we have left. That helps some. I still have a remaining question. This may be for Councilman Lane or it may be for you. I'm not sure. In the way that the budget operates, what has happened in the past is that money on that line item has been allocated directly to Commerce Lexington, as I understand it. Yes. Is there a question now about the way in which that money will be allocated? No. It will be allocated to the Chamber. And when we were initially making in our negotiations and dealing with the Chamber and having a discussion, there was some uncertainty as to whether that full amount or any amount would be allocated to the chamber. Both sides had some concerns about what the other side was looking for and asking for, but we're beyond that now. The money will be allocated to the chamber. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member McCord. Thank you. Ms. Huff? Oh, there you are. Sorry. I want to just follow up with a couple questions. You had mentioned that you all had compared us to other cities. Did you bring forward any kind of data to the links to show a spreadsheet of here's what Louisville, Austin, Knoxville, whatever? Do you have that data that you can see? No, I have it now, and I can certainly provide it to the council if that is something that you wish to see. Okay. But it wasn't presented during the links process? You didn't have that? Correct. Okay. You know, you had mentioned Louisville and how we compare. For the last six years, I've worked extremely closely with Louisville City Council, and I can tell this council that we do a lot more with our folks video-wise than what they do, and we produce a tremendous amount more than they do. So the expectation level for Lexington is much, much higher than what Louisville expects from their folks. But I guess my question or my biggest concern about this area is if we remove the technician role, that's really our only technician, so if equipment's breaking and so forth, do you have a game plan as to have you presented to the Lynx this is how we're going to manage that if equipment breaks and here's our contracts with so-and-so? During the Lynx conversation, we did talk about an average of cost per day for outsourcing the engineering, And that's what our plan is, to not have anyone on contract, to not have a person on staff, but rather when something does happen that we do outsource that. My concern is kind of like what happened here on Tuesday where Councilmember Stenet's equipment starts failing and so forth, and we're going to outsource somebody that can come in here and do that immediately. It seems a bit cumbersome when you've got somebody sitting right over there that has done that. But I guess that was my question. I just want to see how much data we had so that folks here could understand how we do compare to other cities. But as it relates to Louisville and Lexington, I just want to go on record and say it's apples to oranges. That's not a good comparison city as you're talking about the expectation level of what we provide. But thank you. I appreciate that. And Louisville does actually have a lot of meetings that they do cover almost twice as many as we do, and they have a smaller staff. So that's why we chose to compare ourselves to them because of the size and the work that is done. But I'm happy to share that information with the council. Thank you. I appreciate that. I look forward to seeing it. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, members of the Link. I have a question about the downtown development funds and the economic development funds that we've had much conversation. And I don't have a question for the administration or anybody. I guess I just want to pose this to the council just for discussion. My district, the southern border of it, comes downtown. And, of course, I would think that my district has great economic needs in regards to employment, minority, and small business. My comments are not so much on the roughly $700,000 that's in this budget for downtown and economic development. But my question is, what role does council play? So I'm going towards a policy kind of discussion. I think the administration is working with the chamber for, for instance, to kind of guide the parameters of what that PSA will be. I know our role is to appropriate funds, but are we certain and do we have a role in this discussion as a council? If any member of the link kind of wants to talk about that, what role does council play in this discussion aside from the appropriation and the adoption of this budget? Mr. Lane? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Got that ball. I think, you know, normally the way the situation is set up is that Commerce Lexington, for example, would have a plan of what they want to do. I know if they're negotiating with the mayor's office now, they'll probably have some changes from what they've done in the past. And I think, you know, obviously they're going to make a presentation to the council when they get that worked out and we'll have an overview of what's going on. I don't think that council can really micromanage economic development because there's issues of confidentiality that, number one, many of the companies that are looking to relook their business or expand their business and they're considering Lexington, they would require the economic development people to enter into a confidentiality agreement where they cannot disclose the name of the company. And then secondly, it's just not good business. If you're recruiting a company and you start publishing it in the paper, bringing it before council and airing it on our local TV here, then other cities will hear about it and they will contact that company and try to compete with you for that new business that wants to come to our community. And then if you're a local business and you're thinking about expanding or putting out a new product or service, you know, you have to be concerned about your employees' knowledge, what's going on, what your competition's knowledge is, and they're also seeking confidentiality. So it's a very unusual business, and I can speak to that because I've been doing commercial real estate development and representing companies for, you know, over 25 years, and confidentiality is a key item. So I was trying to divulge to the council everything that's going on. I think will be very difficult. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Lane. And I guess, and I agree with you, that we have to entrust the administration and the business professionals at the chamber and those that they represent. But I would implore that we could take a more proactive approach. I mean, we obligate and we appropriate the funds. Just speaking solely for my district, there are things that economically, the residents of my district need. And I would like the opportunity as a council member, as part of the council, for us to be able to set the priorities to kind of work in partnership with the administration and the chamber in our economic development force. Those are just some of my thoughts. I look forward to learning how that may play out. If I might just respond to that just very quickly, is that in most cases, you know, the city, Commerce Lexington, commercial developers, et cetera, they don't set the policy. The client sets the policy. A company says I want to have this type of demographics in my trade area, these are the people who are my customers, or a company wants to do manufacturing and I need skilled workers that have this educational background, or I'm looking for land costs. There are so many factors in there. but it's very difficult for the council or even the Congress of Lexington or the mayor's office to set policy on who we're going to get in. We have to provide the best location, the best trained workforce, the best tax base, the best infrastructure we can, and to make it attractive for companies to come here, that's about the main thing we can do, but we really can't target who's going to come in because these companies, they're very large, they're very sophisticated, They know who their business clients are and who their customers are, and they are going to target the markets that are working for them. So it's a tricky process where we just have to have the very best city, environment, quality of life. And I think Lexington is an exceptional city, and we have a lot of potential. Thank you. Mr. Martin, were you finished? I think I was going to start. This happened once before. That's all right. No, I was just going to sort of follow up with Council Member Ford's question about what our role could be. You know, we have an Economic Development Committee, and I think that's a great place where the Council interacts with Commerce Lexington and with our own economic development professionals in-house. You know, economic development really is a public-private partnership if it works well. When I was at the Economic Development Cabinet, The cabinet had just been sort of separated from the political structure of state government, and we had a private sector board that sort of supervised the cabinet's activities. And one of the things it does, it kind of pulls the tension out of using economic development, I guess financial incentives for political purpose, because if you've got money to give away, it's sure nice to go give it to people, give it to your friends. And so I think what's nice about a public-private partnership is that it remains arm's length and it remains with a lot of players, with Commerce Lexington, but also almost more importantly, University of Kentucky. Because University of Kentucky's commercialization efforts are really some of the biggest game we have in town. That is where our new companies are going to come from for tomorrow, from the startups and entrepreneurship. And as I said earlier, the Angelou study said that's going to be a big part of it. Another thing that the council does is approve local masses and TIF projects so that we do interact with the economic development process that way. And obviously Commerce Selecting comes and gives us quarterly updates. And I think it's our responsibility to tell our partners when they're not doing a good job. I mean, they bring us big, thick packets of stuff every quarter, and I'm not sure I've ever heard anybody sort of complain about what was in one of those packets. And so I think we have a responsibility to read what we bring and to kick the tires and tell them we don't like what they're doing. Another thing that I want to say as far as our, and this is a little off the budget, I guess, but I appreciate the indulgence, is that the importance of community development, you mentioned how is that economic development going to help your district. And there's a sort of tension between community development and economic development. I always think of economic development kind of like bringing water and putting it in a fishbowl. We bring money from outside of Lexington and bring it here, wherever it goes. Whereas community development is how do we reallocate our assets within the community? And so I think we have not given, I think, adequate level of priority to community development. And so I think that's something that we as a government need to do more of to make sure that various parts of our city are being included in the economy and have an equal chance to prosper and to send their kids to college and pursue their dreams as well. So I think those are good questions. I think this is something that we're going to continue to talk about here on council. But I just wanted to speak in favor of the public-private partnership. I think it is a desperately important thing that we be able to have private partners involved in the economic development process. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like, if we could, to call Johnny Martinez to the microphone. So he is an employee in PIO. I'll let you talk a little bit more about what you do. But I've had several conversations with him regarding the mayor's proposed budget, mainly because my office is looking to do some new things in terms of getting our message out to the public. And so I'll let you go ahead and take over, Johnny, and share some of the concerns that you have with me. I know we just heard from Ms. Hupp that you said that you could maintain the level of production that we have been accustomed to in the past, even without your colleague that's left. So could you speak a little bit to what you guys do and how well you're going to be able to maintain that level? Absolutely. Thank you very much for having me, Mr. Myers. Currently, we have two positions in the Government Communications Graphic Arts Office. That's down from three. We've already lost one due to retirement recently, the fiscal year 2010. We also undertook the signage responsibilities for building maintenance and construction, where they used to do routed signage. We now do that. So we went down from three employees to two, and we took on more responsibilities. So we're doing, right now, more than we used to. We are a statewide recognized graphic arts office. We've won the Kentucky Association of Government Communications Award of Excellence. and two merit awards. So we're quality as well as quantity. We have an overall operating budget. We're given $6,000 to start out with. This is just operating. That's not personnel. We're reimbursed about the same amount, so we take about $12,000 annually to produce signs, banners, and designs for the city government. So that's, like I said, $12,000. Now, for our production, last year we did 1,017 signs, banners, or designs. 1,017 between two people. That's astonishing. Now, I did speak with Ms. Hupp earlier, and we are able to, in the short term, right now, I am able to keep up with production of my office that's requested right now. That is partially because a lot of the projects I'm outputting now have already been started. A lot of the groundwork has been laid for that. But for one person, for myself, to be able to continue the production of 1,017 pieces per year, I will not be able to do that. What we might have to do is start outsourcing a lot of the services that I provide. Now, whenever we outsource, you guys are going to have to start paying, and the urban county government in general is going to start having to pay the hourly rate for a freelance graphic designer or an in-house graphic designer, which is about $80 an hour. Now, I have given a presentation to most of you about the cost savings. With the graphic designer in-house, we save about $28,000 a year. That's in signs produced. That's in designs produced. Having it in-house is more cost effective. Now, I don't want to go out on a limb, but the projects I am working on now, the projects I have in my queue, are sustainable. because most of that work is already done. What I'm waiting on is final approvals and green lights to go ahead with production. So a lot of the heavy lifting is done. Right now I can keep up. But we are entering the busy season, as you guys know, for Parks and Recreation, for Environmental Quality, for the mayor's office, for special events with DLC. We're entering the busy season. I'm not going to be able to produce 1,017 banner signs and designs per year with just myself in that office. Now, along with the three graphic designers we used to have, myself and two others, we used to also have interns and summer help. So we're cutting down the work of three people, three and a half, including the signage responsibilities from building maintenance, onto one person. Now, our operation is already lean and efficient. We cost very, very little money, but we save the urban county government a ton of money, and we give you guys the public face, the public image that we deserve. If we cut money on graphic design services, our public image will start to dilute. Any questions? I'd be happy to answer them for you. I think the time is up. There's one minute left, Mr. Myers, for you. The clock is not working, so the folks at the Granicus are keeping time on their clock. So you have a minute. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you very much for your presentation. Are there other things that are produced in government like solid waste? Do they produce things on their owners? Does that come through your office as well? No, with the movement of the routed signage, it comes through our office now. There's nobody – no, I'm sorry, Traffic Engineering does the street signs. They do some small quantity, and I don't want to speak out of turn for them. But as far as I know of their office, they don't produce the types of signage that we do. They might go through the same process, but it's for the streets and public safety type of signs. Okay. I guess my time is probably up, so I'll just comment later, but thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Johnny, I have a question. Yes, ma'am. The graphic designer position that is currently here, but it's vacant, correct? I don't believe it's vacant. So do you have someone performing that work? No, not right now. The graphic designers, I believe, on leave right now. Okay. So he didn't resign? I don't believe he did. I can't speak for his intentions or for what he's doing, but he's not right here. Right now, here, he is on leave. Okay. Because my question was, of the other folks within your department, one of the folks that are slated to be laid off, would they fit into that position? I don't believe that the skills are exactly matched. No. I believe videographers and producers have a skill set that is distinctly their own. And whenever you're talking about video production versus print and signage production, it's kind of two different worlds. But you're saying that position is needed, correct? Absolutely. We touch 1.1 million visitors to Lexington and residents of Lexington every year. 1.1 million people see what we do, and that's a general number. That's people seeing all of the vehicle wraps we put on the garbage trucks, those big, beautiful wraps. We did those in-house. We get 225,000 views of those a year. We design things for trash cans that are all over the city. We design the Bike Lexington banner that's hanging up over the MLK Viaduct right now. So we are out there 1.1 million times a year with what we do. I think it's integral that we do and we present LFUCG's face in the most flattering way possible, and Government Communications does that with the graphic designer. So one last question. If this position was filled, if we kept this position and filled it, it would still be cheaper than contracting the work out. Absolutely. And you could handle the workload. If we had two people in that office, as we've proven for the last fiscal year, yes, we can. And we would like to take on more. Okay, thank you. And one last comment. We're not fighting for the job of the incumbent. We're fighting for what is right for the urban county government. You know, we deserve to be perceived as one of the leading employers and a worthwhile organization in Lexington. I'm not fighting for the person in this position. I'm fighting for what's right of the urban county government. I believe that it's correct and it's viable for us to keep the graphic designer position and fill it. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to, first of all, thank you for coming. I mean, if the information that the link would have been presented in terms of the new direction that the administration may have wanted to go was as prepared as what you just did, we may be in a different state. But you obviously have done your homework and you've done your facts, and I just want to let you know I appreciate that. I would ask you, though, to keep an open mind if there is another employee that maybe can take on the responsibility and not become a graphics designer as the role, but take on the duties and help your office as well as continue some of the duties that we're currently doing. Keep an open mind and look on your list and see if there's someone who could be losing a job that could take on those duties. Absolutely. I'm completely open to that. And I've got a question for Ms. Jarvis. Earlier you said that this position was going to be vacant. But what we just heard different about the graphics designer position. So has HR been notified that the person is leaving the position? I was told that the person has submitted a resignation. I don't know that. So we have nothing official. I do not know that he has actually submitted a... Well, it wouldn't be you, though. I mean, it would be probably to HR. Is that who they would present that to? Yes. But you all have not received anything in HR as to this person resigning or moving or leaving. I have not seen the physical piece of paper, but I was told the person had resigned. Or was resigning. I don't know if he has left yet. But I have not seen a piece of paper. I was verbally told that. By who? Okay, this is not. Because this is not how we should be operating, is my point. If we're going to make statements that these positions are vacant, we better have it in writing for that employee because it jeopardizes someone's job, and that's serious. That's what we're up here talking about. And regardless of who told you, that shouldn't be said publicly or to any of the link committee or anyone up here. If that position is still filled, it's still filled until they sign their paperwork and it is submitted officially. So thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Any other questions or comments? I will ask a couple of questions. I want to first thank, is there a question? I wanted first to thank Jeanette Williams in the Council office. She proactively looked at every item in our budget to see where we could cut so that we could take our part in the reductions. And I wanted her to speak about the $40,000 in professional services so that everyone understands what that is. And then just to simply point out that eliminating the budget analyst position would mean that four core staff positions remain. So could you speak just for a short, brief accounting for the $40,000 in professional services? Historically, the $40,000 has been used for consulting. If we have a consultant to come in, a contractor, we would move the money into the professional services account line, and we will decrease that per pay period. And so that's where we put any type of contractual money. So that's all it includes is consultants? Right. That's where we put the professional services. That's where we put the money. It's like a placeholder for the money for that. Thank you. And then she also has been doing studies on the copiers, and you probably already realize this, but the copier in the caucus room is very infrequently used, and we are paying for that anyway. So that is the $5,000 item for the copier. And then finally, I wanted to ask David O'Neill to come forward, please, if you don't mind, and to speak to the exact situation with the PVA office. The original 11 budget had $335,400. You requested $328,500, and the mayor's proposed has $301,860. Welcome. Could you speak to the exact effect of that? Most of the money that you appropriate for running the PVA office are fixed costs. We return about $150,000 of the $335,000 that I asked for back to the state to reimburse the state for salaries for the 25 full-time deputy PVAs in our office. another $75,000 of that money goes directly to our vendor for the database that we use to run our system for continued annual maintenance of our database and our user agreements. So the bottom line is there's very little spending that we do in the office that's not already accounted for and fixed. We also pay Republic Parking about $18,000 a year for parking spaces. you're all required to provide us office spaces, but it doesn't say anything about parking spaces. So we have adequate office space for 25 employees, 26 including myself, but we're paying for parking. So bottom line is that since I've been in office now for the third year, we've produced a tax roll that has grown from one year to the next and provided the city and the other taxing districts the ability to continue to meet their revenue requirements without raising tax rates, and you can see directly the spending that we do, how that translates into continuing to grow the tax roll in years when you wouldn't expect us to be able to do that. So the $26,000 from what we requested versus what has been recommended, it's just a flat 10% and seems a little arbitrary. And of that $335,000, $207,000 is statutory and can't be cut. So if the intent is to cut us by $10,000 on our non-fixed spending, $207,000 of that is statutory and can't be cut. Did I understand, Mr. Lane, to say that the impact would be a layoff in your office? I believe it was Mr. Martin that said that. And what I said is that the $150-something thousand that we return to the state is really the only money that we have to play with. So, yes, I would imagine that I would cut at least one part-time position and possibly a full-time position if our spending is cut. You know, we can come back time and time again and made these cuts, and I think there might be a little bit more spending cutting that we could do with a scalpel, but not with the meat cleaver. And I think since I have come back three or four times and made budget cuts without being asked to do so, that I've earned a little credibility in this area. and I would ask you to go along with what I requested. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council members, I don't see anyone else who has a question, but now there is. Council Member McCord. Well, I guess I'm looking at some stats here, and I guess I would just say to my colleagues that I've got some concern with what's taking place up here. I mean, I don't feel like we're getting a lot of really good information as to what's going on. And I'm looking at, for example, I'm sitting here looking at some of these stats versus Lexington-Louisville as far as it relates to television time. And, you know, again, I go to Lexington's got about 570 hours worth of programming. Louisville's got about 280. You know, so as we're hearing, well, we're really comparable and so forth. I look at conversations we've had back and forth with folks from Louisville as it relates to PIO, and direct quote is Louisville's looking to actually benchmark off of Lexington and some of the things we do. I have grave concern for what was said up here where, you know, it's represented that employees said, hey, this is great, this is fine, I can make this work. Employee is willing to come to the mic in front of everybody and say, that's not an accurate statement, and express his concern about this. And then I don't know what is exactly transpiring with regard to graphic designer and so forth, but I just think that I'm sitting in this meeting and I just get a little concerned that what we're getting is not what we need to be getting. And I just would caution that, you know, this body, this is our budget. This is our budget. It's the council's budget. The mayor has proposed a budget, but this is our budget. And if we're not working off of the right information or if we're getting stuff that is not accurate, I've got grave concern about that because we've got a heavy responsibility and ultimately it falls on us. And so, Vice Mayor, I just want to share my concerns as to where we are with some of the things that are being represented on this mic today. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Does any other council member have a question? I think you have highlighted some, not necessarily discrepancies, but differences of viewpoint at least. Ms. Huck, did you want to say something else? Or CAO, did you want to say something else? Yeah, I just want to say how this all came about. You know, I do my walk around on Friday afternoons, and the gentleman that got up and spoke came to me and told me that the gentleman that worked for him will no longer be here Monday because he's going to work for R.J. Corman. If anything got out, it's because I was told that the gentleman has gone to work for R.J. Corman. I apologize, but that was brought to my attention from the gentleman that just got up and spoke, that the guy has gone to work for R.J. Corman. So I did not, I mean, I'll just give everybody a heads up what was brought to my attention. Okay, thank you. You know, I do my walk around on Fridays, and that's what came about. Okay. Thank you. Is there – okay. We have one more comment. Councilman McCord, I, too, receive the information that you have, and I'm a pretty trusting person, but I also like to verify. And I have been in strong communication with the Louisville Communications Department and have different numbers compared to us, more apples to apples. And that's the information that I'm happy to share with the council that I'll send to you very briefly that shows the programming that we have compared to the programming that they have and that the hours that they're on compared to the staffing and the personnel costs. I think it's important when we're comparing ourselves to other cities that we look at ways that we actually compare, and it's much more on the same level. So I'm very happy to share that information with you as well. Could you e-mail that to all council members and provide your source? Absolutely. And what I also have is a little bit of preliminary information from the review that Glenn Brown and I are doing on government communications on how we plan to cross-train the people within the department to help with issues like what the gentleman mentioned earlier with graphic design and making sure that we have more than one person or two people trained in certain areas. And that is something that we're going to do throughout the entire department to make sure that we eliminate any single points of failure. Thank you very much. Did you have a question? Council Member Martin, did you have a question? Then we'll get to Mr. Sullivan. Well, I was going to ask you a point blank question about Louisville, and I think Mr. Sullivan may have better numbers, but when you said that they're doing twice as many services as we are, I guess I question that. And so I think the person who might be able to answer that is Mr. Sullivan, because, I mean, for example, they don't broadcast their planning and zoning meetings, do they? No, you're absolutely right, but they do offer twice as many programs per year. And I think it's important to compare the same language, the same appropriate programming that they have towards what we have. And some of the information that you received, it shows there were zeros several across the page when it compared particular shows that we have here, which, of course, they wouldn't offer in Louisville because it's not pertinent. So I think it's important to show programming versus programming and the services that they offer. Well, I guess what we're concerned about is that we're getting spin, and this is not a place to spin. And I think if we get spin here, there will be some frustration. Sure. I'm happy to share all the information with you. Thank you, Vice President. Thank you. Did you have something you wanted to add, Mr. Sullivan? If I may, since my numbers are being challenged by Ms. Hupp, I serve on a state board with the manager of the TV station, Louisville Metro TV, and we had a telephone conversation and followed up with some extensive phone calls and conference calls to compare their five people to our nine people and why we have more and why they do less than we do. One big difference is crosstown traffic. They don't do the show we do. They have no producer in the control of the traffic center. They just automatically shift cameras around. We dedicate an employee to do that. We are providing a service to Lexington that Louisville is not providing to theirs. community. And I believe that while Sheila may say and could perhaps be accurate, they don't have a show named exactly like our show, but the total number of programs that they do a year in terms of their hours on programming is 139 and we do 602. Now, they do not on meetings, televised planning commissions. And when you look at the hours that our staff devote to all of these meetings that you do, it's 571 hours average a year that GTV3 is in this chamber. We do the green space. We do BOA, BOAR. Louisville does not do any of those meetings. And my point, and I'll be brief about it, was just when I broke it down to say we can do it with less and do what they have, we will have a very difficult time providing the same service that we do today. Thank you very much. I don't see any other council members on the list, so council members on the back of your packet is the updated schedule of meetings. And I will remind you we have a 430 Committee of the Whole upstairs on the fifth floor, the quarterly Committee of the Whole. so could I hear a motion to adjourn? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you very much to all. Thank you.