# Urban County Council Meeting - July 7, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · July 7, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2081 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2081?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-07-07 - **Last revised**: July 7, 2011 - **Length**: 34,255 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met on July 7, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Gray presiding. The meeting included four agenda items, all of which were informational in nature: an invocation, committee reports, a budget process update, and discussion of collective bargaining agreements. The Council took three votes during the session and heard one public comment. The meeting focused on providing updates and information to Council members rather than on legislative action or decision-making on substantive matters. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on July 7, 2011: * Mayor Gray * Henson * Kay * Lane * Lawless * Martin * McChord * Myers * Stinnett * Beard * Blues * Crosbie * Ellinger * Farmer * Ford * Gorton No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of Minutes from April 12, 14, and 28, 2011** [timestamp: 00:03:14] Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Gorton. The minutes were approved unanimously with 15 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor: Henson, Kay, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, and Gorton. **Override Mayor's Veto on FY 2012 Budget 10% Cut for Outside Agencies** [timestamp: 1:00:04] Motion by Stinnett, seconded by McChord. This roll call vote failed with 4 ayes and 11 nays. Voting in favor: Stinnett, Kay, Martin, and McChord. Voting against: Beard, Myers, Lawless, Henson, Gorton, Ford, Farmer, Ellinger, Crosbie, Blues, and Lane. **Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading** [timestamp: 1:11:10] Motion by Crosbie, seconded by Myers. The ordinances on second reading were approved by roll call vote with 15 ayes and 0 nays. Voting in favor: Henson, Kay, Lane, Lawless, Martin, McChord, Myers, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, and Gorton. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved several financial actions and contracts as outlined in Resolution 0073-26: **Meadows-Northland-Arlington Neighborhood Improvements Project Phase 3D** A contract valued at $787,999.10 was awarded to Claunch Construction, LLC for Phase 3D of the Meadows-Northland-Arlington Neighborhood Improvements Project. **Asphalt and Pavement Maintenance Contracts** The meeting approved three unit price contracts for asphalt and pavement maintenance services: * **Crack Sealing**: C & R Asphalt was contracted at $1.15 per pound * **Asphalt Emulsion Slurry Seal**: American Pavements, Inc. was contracted at $2.18 per square yard * **Asphalt Surface Maintenance with Rejuvenating Agent**: Pavement Technology, Inc. was contracted at $0.74 per square yard All financial actions were approved under Resolution 0073-26. ## Public Comment Robert Dalton addressed the meeting at approximately [timestamp: 3:50:08] to promote a golf outing organized by American Legion Post 341. Mr. Dalton sought participants and sponsors for the event, which is intended to support veterans. ## Contested Items **Override Mayor's Veto on FY 2012 Budget 10% Cut for Outside Agencies** The council voted on a motion to override the Mayor's veto regarding a 10% budget cut for outside agencies in the FY 2012 budget. The motion failed with a vote of 4-11, demonstrating significant disagreement among council members on whether to proceed with the proposed cut despite the Mayor's opposition. The narrow support for the override indicated that a substantial majority of the council sided with the Mayor's position on this budgetary matter. **Approval of Collective Bargaining Agreements** A heated discussion took place regarding the council's authority over collective bargaining agreements. Council members held differing opinions on whether the council should have the power to approve or disapprove such agreements. The debate centered on the appropriate scope of the council's role in labor negotiations and contract approval, with no clear consensus emerging on how this authority should be exercised or distributed among city government bodies. ## Invocation Reverend Nancy Jo Kemper from New Union Church provided the invocation for the meeting. [timestamp: 00:00] ## Committee Reports Vice Mayor Gorton reported on the Committee of the Whole Work Session held on July 5, 2011. [timestamp: 0:04:56] This agenda item was presented for informational purposes. ## Budget Process Update Commissioner Janet Graham provided an update on the budget process and addressed the implications of the Mayor's veto. [timestamp: 00:07:46] This was an informational presentation with no formal action taken. The discussion focused on how the Mayor's veto would affect the ongoing budget process and the council's next steps in responding to it. ## Collective Bargaining Agreements [timestamp: 2:01:13] The council discussed the procedure for approval of collective bargaining agreements during this agenda item. Senator Kathy Stein and Mike Sweeney provided input on the matter, along with union representatives who participated in the discussion. The focus of the discussion centered on the approval process for collective bargaining agreements. While the specific details of the procedure were addressed, the outcome of this item was informational in nature, meaning the council received information and discussion on the topic without taking formal action at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Approval of minutes from April 12, 14, and 28, 2011 - **Motion** — failed (4-11): Override Mayor's veto on FY 2012 Budget 10% cut for outside agencies - **Motion** — passed (15-0): Approval of ordinances on second reading --- ## Full transcript Good morning, Mr. Nye. And first on our agenda, we get to welcome Reverend Nancy Jo Kemper again, from New Union Church. And I especially want to thank you, Reverend Nancy Jo, for coming to visit with us again and give the invocation because we know you were here just a few weeks ago, it seems like. I was indeed. And we want to thank Rabbi Klein as well for helping us to organize our invocation for each council session. And he called you, I understand, pretty much at the last hour. So we really want to thank you again. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it very much. I'd like to ask you before we really begin to just take a moment. Maybe getting here, the rain, whatever else, the construction out front, the smell, and sort of close your eyes and take a deep breath and think of things that you are really glad for today and that you appreciate having been part of your day. If you will, just a few moments of silence. For all the bounty and blessings of our lives, we are thankful and grateful. We ask you, guide of our conscience, God of many names, known in many ways, to be present tonight amongst this gathering of our civic leaders and citizens that all might listen with respect to one another and have minds open to all possibilities and realities as they work for the common good of all our people. Planted deep within our human natures our sensibilities about what is right and good and what is wrong and damaging, enable all who participate in this session tonight of our City Council to draw deeply on the wellsprings of their knowledge, their values, and their hopes and visions for this community. May any difficult decisions that have to be made occur in such fashion that the peace and harmony of this body of elected leaders may not be damaged but be strengthened. May citizens observing and learning of these decisions and actions receive them as those considered for their wisdom and consequences, both in the short term and long term. Above all, may justice and truth permeate this gathering and be the goals of all the work of this body tonight and in the daily duties of these public servants whom we have elected to serve us all. Amen. Thank you so much, Nancy Jo. Mayor, I'll be glad to call the roll. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Ms. Henson? Ms. Henson? Mr. K? Here. Thank you. Mr. Lane? Here. Ms. Lawless? Here. Mr. Martin? Here. Mr. McCord? Here. Mr. Myers? Here. Mr. Stennett? Here. Mr. Beard? Present. Mr. Blues? Here. Ms. Crosby? Here. Mr. Ellinger? Here. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Here. And Ms. Gorton? Here. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Next on our agenda is approval of minutes of previous meetings. We have minutes to approve or comment on for April 12, 14, and 28, 2011. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger to approve the minutes and second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion? Second. Hearing none, all in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is committee reports. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. The committee of the whole work session met Tuesday, July 5th, and I have four items from that meeting. I move to place on the docket number six under first reading of ordinances without a public hearing. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Farmer. Does anyone wish to speak in opposition to the motion? No? Then we can vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I move to correct the amount listed in number 25 for first reading of resolutions to read $48,859. That's a motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Does anyone wish to speak in opposition? If not, we can vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Vice Mayor. I move to place on the docket a procedure to approve the collective bargaining agreements. Moved by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Kaye. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion. All right. We can record it electronically if you'd like. Who wish to record the vote? All right. I'll vote electronically then, please. The vote reflects passage of the motion. No, sir. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It requires a tiebreaker. The vote now reflects passage of the motion. And the final item, Mayor, I move to place on the docket changes to the rules and procedures and council restructuring to become effective September 12, 2011. Second. Motion and motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, seconded by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That completes my report. Thank you, ma'am. Before we go to ordinances, for a second reading, I'd like to ask Commissioner Graham. Janet, I'd like to ask Commissioner Graham if she would bring us up to date on where we are in the process regarding the budget. The purpose of this would be to make sure that we are, we all know where we are, and especially as it relates to the operational issues going forward. So if you would tell us, share with us, thank you. As you all are aware, I think we provided you a memo relating to the process. What has been loaded is the budget that you all passed. Now that the mayor has vetoed items, those items have been pulled. I think our recommendation to you, the charter says that if you all wish to override, that you act within a reasonable period of time. It doesn't define reasonable. But I think the memo pointed out that the more time lag that goes on, the more the operational aspects kick in, and it makes it difficult for payments to be made and that kind of thing. So does that help? Were there any questions on that? Okay. I'll answer. All right. I missed the last part of what Commissioner Graham was saying because Council Member Blues was asking a question over on the side. So could you, for my benefit, would you please repeat that? For the benefit of the chair. And so I know where we are right now. Okay. Operationally, the budget that's been loaded into the system is the budget the council passed. The items that you vetoed have been pulled out of that because the charter says veto items are immediate. So our recommendation and what the guidance that we've given to everybody is, the charter provides a reasonable time for the council to override a veto if they wish. It doesn't define reasonable time, but operationally, the sooner that's done, the better it is for all of our systems for payment and that type of thing. Mr. Farmer, do you wish to speak to the... I was just going to ask a question of... Of Commissioner Graham? Okay. Go ahead, please. I'm assuming among us reasonable time would mean tonight, but I don't think there's any... I don't want to presume anything. Well, I understand what I'm saying. Assume and presume or two. Yes, sir. But I would think this is our first official meeting since the veto message was delivered after the budget was passed. I don't, I mean, we as a legislative body could decide to take this up at a later date by motion and second, but I think the idea would be for clarity to go ahead and get squared away and move on tonight. That certainly would be helpful operationally. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Stenick. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner, I had a couple questions first. One, so the employees that were vetoed, I assume they're still getting a paycheck until when? They are, the way that the veto was phrased, the pay period goes up through, I believe, July 16th or 17th. So they will be paid up to that point. And then I see Commissioner Driscoll here. Can you give us the current fund balance? I know there's some discrepancies from what Council thought it was to now. and can you give us the most accurate fund balance number we have today? Because Council thought it was $602,000 before the veto. I know what the vetoed numbers totaled, but I'm not sure we've been given an accurate number according to budgeting. I think there were some errors made on our last day. So if you could give us the most current fund balance with the vetoes in there. Or without. We can add. I can do addition. Either way. I can give you when we entered everything into the system, there were a couple of mistakes that were made. Okay. And the information that was provided to you on the worksheet that you all completed in the balance prior to the veto, $800,858. That's the estimated. $800,858? Yes, sir. And so currently it's this plus the veto. That would be correct, plus the 900-some, what those three add up to. Okay, very good. Given, you know, the process is what it is, and I appreciate the mayor in his thoroughness and his timeliness of vetoing the three items that he chose to veto. You know, this is not a perfect process, as we said, nor is this a perfect budget. That's why we have budget amendments. But there are a couple things that some of us do feel strongly about. And since 2008, we had an outside agency budget of $5.1 million. This year we have an outside agency budget of $4.1 million. We've cut these groups by a million dollars over the last four budgets in total. And it's one of the very few opportunities we have in government to spend that $4.1 million that would make us money or save us money in government. And therefore, I will go ahead and make a motion to override the 10 percent cut across the board for every outside agency. So move. Second. There's a motion and a second. Floor is available for discussion. Mr. Lane, do you wish to speak to this? Council Member Lane. Well, I'm a little surprised that we're bringing this up tonight because I thought maybe the council could collaborate more over a period of time before we brought this vote up for consideration. But I would like to say that I also concur with Council Member Stenet. I think that we have cut these outside agencies for the last three or four years. And this year is probably the one where we need the most help because this is the safety net for people in need. and it also, some of the funding for the partner agencies is to promote economic development for our community and one thing we need to do is to have an aggressive economic development effort to build the jobs and the tax revenues for the city. So, you know, I would support this. Thank you. Mr. Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I had spoken about restoring some of the cuts to some of the partner agencies and had thought about bringing forward a motion that would separate out those that provide the services to those in our community who are most needy, because I think those are the agencies that have already had cuts made in various ways in addition to what the government has cut. I had decided not to offer that forward, but with this proposal, even though I have some reservations about putting back the money for some of the partner agencies that would be included that do not provide social services, in order to assure that the cuts that were made to the social service agencies are not maintained, I would also vote in favor of this motion. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Steader, just a quick math. Where will we be on fund balance if, in fact, this passes? Commissioner Driscoll, you want to give us the outside agency numbers if you have it, or maybe Mr. Barrow has them. It's $316,000, I believe. Fourteen. So roughly a half million dollars would still be there. If you give me a minute, I'll give you the exact number. $314,612. $314,612. At some point in time, I'd like to ask you, Jane, And put that in the context of what we are expecting in order to balance the budget. In other words, the numbers that are still a stretch in many respects in order to get to the point that we have a fund balance next year. That is the negotiations, collective bargaining negotiations, and the health insurance. You can come back to that. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. I've thought a lot about this. I'm a social worker. I was the director of a nonprofit for nearly 30 years. And not all of these agencies have been cut over the years. I think at one point a mayor took three agencies, the Rape Crisis Center, which I was the director of, completely out of the budget. And many of these, I mean, I absolutely support what they do, but a 10 percent decrease, our employees haven't had a raise in years. We're broke. We don't have any money. And we're hopefully people will, this will be an opportunity for our community to step up and dig a little deeper, those that can afford it, dig a little deeper in their pockets and support these agencies, volunteer their time, and be better neighbors to each other. We're not in a position to, you know, some of them say, well, we got cut here. We got, we're getting cut by the federal and state government, as well as facing a really difficult budget situation. So for that reason, I'm not going to support this motion with the exception of one, which is the Human Rights Commission. And I am going to support restoring their funding, which I believe is about $17,000. And the reason for this is they have been badly cut. They are not a nonprofit, so they can't raise outside funds. and that they work for the city, and we have to have a Human Rights Commission in order to get HUD funding and some of our CV, CD, B, G, whatever letters, funding. So they're at less than half staff, and they provide a service for us. They can't raise money any other way, and we could lose our HUD funding. if they are not properly operating. So for all those reasons, I'm not going to support this motion. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Oh, sorry. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. A lot of places in life where you're making decisions, it's wise before you take a step forward to take a step back. And the Q&A that you just had with Commissioner Driscoll is something that I do want to circle back to, but it's not really part of this motion. But some of the budget opportunities here have been missed because of just some lack of communication between you and us. This year, the meetings are different. You're not at as many meetings. We haven't had as much interaction with you. And I think that there's not actually that technically much difference between what you proposed and what we finally passed. But I do think that there's still more discussion to be had about the budget in general, but that's not to this motion. When we had our Friday meeting with you downstairs, which was a very informative meeting, everyone who was there I think profited from being around the table, you said then that you had talked with many of the leaders of the outside agencies and had expressed, or that you expressed to them and then they back to you, that we're all taking cuts. And I know that if there's ever a time to do that and stick to it, it is here and now. I'm not sure which way this economy is going. And, you know, at the very end, in order to supplement the budget, the revenue number was raised by budgeting in order to get things to come out even. So going on your word, you have talked to them, and the leadership that you have shown in gaining that consensus, I will not support my good council member friend, Kevin Stinnett, because I think the idea is all need to come in under the moniker of giving back some this year. This is not an easy decision, and it's not one we can really split up and out, and I appreciate that Council Member Kay chose not to do that, because that would pit agencies against one another. I think as the new budget year dawns, there's an opportunity for us to help some individually or in different ways. But here and now tonight, with you as our mayor and our opportunity for leadership before us, this is one I will not vote to override you on. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Mayor Gray, thank you. And not to repeat many of what my fellow council members have said, my point was going to be very similar to Council Member Farmers in more of the form of a question. I was going to ask how much notice did the outside agencies have and was there discussion, which I had asked during a budgeting meeting, and I believe the answer was told was that they had had opportunity to be able to plan, like the rest of our divisions in government for these cuts. Is that correct? Is it correct that they've had an opportunity? That you met with them prior to the budget? I was going to ask Commissioner Driscoll, actually. Yeah, I think actually Commissioner Driscoll would be appropriate to answer the question because I was inquiring of her this afternoon on the question of social service agencies and their funding in the last, including this budget year, the last three. Commissioner Driscoll, I may have already asked this question during the budgeting process when this came up. Clearly you sat down with every division within government because we're cutting across the board. And I believe I had asked if that had also occurred with our outside agencies. Well, we request information from them prior to requesting information from our internal divisions. And then each of those agencies are assigned, if you will, to a department, to a commissioner's area. So they have some communication in that regard. And they were all called prior to the mayor's budget. Okay. his proposal. And then there's been some communication since then. Well, I appreciate that. And I guess going back to what Council Member Farmer and Council Member Lawless touched on is the fact that we have asked every single division that we fund within government to cut and to take a cut and to not do that across the board consistently. I cannot support this motion. So I appreciate it, but I will be voting against it. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. It's interesting. I find myself agreeing on the one hand with Council Member Stenet. Of all the times that partner agencies and our citizens need services now is a big time. However, I also agree with Council Member Farmer. And one of the things that distresses me most about this is that it is my understanding that more than 10 of the partner agencies intend to use our money for pay raises for their employees. And I definitely think that is inappropriate. Our employees have not had raises, as was mentioned, for a few years. The public sector is not giving big raises, and I think that knowing that more than 10 of these agencies plan on raises for their employees has convinced me that I will not be able to support the motion. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Many of the comments I share on both sides, as Vice Mayor Gordon just indicated, I definitely see the value that the partner agencies provide. For the constituents of my district, I know they provide a great service. However, the word that I've been using for the last two or three weeks or so has been compromise. And the veto process that the mayor has the right to exercise, and also for us to override a veto, doesn't get me to where I believe we ought to be as a community and as a government in the area of compromise. I agree that some cuts should need to be shared. My personal preference would be for a 5% cut, but that is not this motion, and that's not what this override provides. So in that regards, I'm going to not be able to support the override as presented. I will keep an open mind, and as we go forward, would like to support additional assistance to partner agencies through an opportunity that provides compromise and fiscal responsibility. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor. Council Member Blues. Council Member Blues. various entities across government to take significant cuts. And it's only fair that our partner agencies should share in that obligation and that sacrifice. I think with Council Member Ford, if we went through this list line by line, We'd all have different priorities, and we would all see that certain agencies, we would prefer to see funded or cut less, treated differently. But we can't slice and dice in that way and be fair. So I will support the mayor's veto and vote against the motion, and I will also not support any attempt to privilege any one entity among the partner agencies over another. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I think this is a very serious issue. I think, and you can tell that based upon all the discussion that's gone around the table. I worked for a not-for-profit for 20-plus years and an agency that serves very disadvantaged individuals. So this is a very hard decision for me to make. But I do think that I entrust in this council and the administration to correct the problems that we have within our government of things that I see as out of control, things that have skyrocketed. So I regrettably do not support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I think as the public is watching and those in the audience need to understand that you're talking about a decision here that is probably as heartfelt as any decisions we've made at a council, that every council member is certainly taking this extremely seriously and weighing where we are on these types of things. And I think that first and foremost, I want the public to understand that none of this budget process from the administrative side, from the council side, has ever been taken flippantly. And it is something that is extremely serious. And I think you can see that just by this vote here tonight. I think that I support Council Member Stenet's motion. I seconded it because I do believe that we have an opportunity of exponential, with dollars going to these partner agencies, we have exponential opportunity to affect our community in a positive way. But I guess, Vice Mayor, my concern is something that you had said, that you had identified 10 separate groups that you know of. I have not seen any kind of list to that effect. Is that something that's in writing that we know of? I attempted to get the list. The administration's been working on it, and I was not able to get it by tonight. But I've been told with good authority from the administration that there are more than ten. So, Mayor, is that – I want to make sure I've got my – That is my understanding as well. I have not looked at the documents, but I do want to say that in affirming what you have said, Council Member McCord, that these are tough choices for everyone, And the theme of the budget has been to restore ourselves to solvency and to ask, and in a sense to expect, those who are our partners to actually engage the word partner in a meaningful way and to acknowledge the difficult times that we're facing as a government. Lexington, other cities all across the country, and where we can to adjust and adapt. So when we reflect on this process next year, we can ask for our partner agencies to be more intentional and to be more careful in creating their requests. And to recognize that as a city, we're all struggling. This budget that we've got to deal with has some big challenges still in it. It's going to be a very rocky road for us to balance it. And what we're asking for in this budget is help and some shared support. That's my view of it. Well, and I appreciate that very much. And while I'm going to support this because I have not seen that list and don't know that, But I do think that it would be probably a wise decision to, when you've got that list, to share it with the council. And we ask those folks to come here and speak to us directly as to why they felt like that was something that they wanted to do and that probably may have cost them the vote tonight. because I think that a lot of folks don't want to understand the difficulty of if you haven't given raises here and the tough times in the private sector. But, again, I'm going to support this because I haven't seen that document, and that's the first that I'd heard of it. But I would ask that after this vote, whichever way it goes, that that document be shared with full counsel, and we ask those agencies, whoever they are, to come before this mic and the community. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. And I think I'd like to ask, Council Member Myers is next up. I'd also like to ask Commissioner Driscoll, if you would, to share with us, in terms of social service agency or partner agencies, the history in the last three budget years of the budgeted amounts and the distributions. While you're looking that up, though, I'll ask Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Could you also, Commissioner, look at what agencies are new or different in the last three years as well, which ones have been completely cut out of the budget and which ones have been added into the budget? Okay. I'm not sure you're going to be able to handle that one since that's going to be something that would come from experience, I think, so you might have to go to someone else for that. But they should be in the budget from last year. Well, I'm just saying she won't have it off the top of her head. Right. Okay. Are you ready to answer his question? I can. In terms of looking, we looked just from 2009 to 2010, 10 to 11, and then 11 to 12, obviously, you know, the 11 to 12 story. In 2000, from 2009 to 2010, there were reductions in the partner agencies, but not the social service partner agencies. So the reductions took place in the Commerce Lexington Downtown Arts Center, those kinds of agencies from 2009 to 2010. From 2010 to 2011, there were reductions across the board with the exception of four agencies. So all the partner agencies took reductions with the exception of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence, the Hope Center, MASH, and the Salvation Army. So those were held steady from 2010, 2011. I know, Mayor, if you wanted me to answer your earlier questions. I didn't know if you wanted me to answer your earlier questions about some of the other challenges, or did we deem it? I think I mentioned that. Okay. Might want to come back to it if we need to. Councilman Myers, you. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Mills, are you here? We had a conversation the other day. You may or may not be able to shed some light on which agencies have reported that they're going to use some of this money for raises. If you can, could you do that, please? Yes. My administrative officer, we have 15 partner agencies, and of those 15, seven requested raises for their employees in their application. Do you know which ones they are? I can't name the seven off the top of my head, but I can get those to you all. But seven of our 15 did ask for raises in their application. Okay. And then do you know which agencies are new and which ones have been cut out of the budget this year? We had in social services, we had no new agencies. We had two new applications. We had one agency which was cut out because their give was only $2,730. Okay. And then one final question for you. We were talking earlier, I think the mayor mentioned earlier, with Commissioner Jisco, I think, I'm not sure which other commissioner, but the whole conversation about what information was provided and whether people were called or contacted. And I think we discussed this in one of the Social Services Standing Committee meetings. most of these agencies, maybe all these agencies, have to report on some type of regular basis, whether it's quarterly or monthly, when they get their allotment, each time the allotment's issued, what they're doing with that money and how they're making progress on what they said they would do in their application. That's correct. And could you elaborate or could you say to everybody here what we talked about before in terms of whether or not the mayor is given those reports when he determines who he's going to put in the budget for an analysis of that data and whether the council received the same? I do not believe that the council received that information, not to my knowledge. They have not. We review them in social services, and they have been passed along to the CAO's office, but I don't think that the council has reviewed those on a regular basis, unless that was done prior to my tenure. Okay. And I think you said in that meeting that the mayor hadn't seen that either. He hadn't received an analysis or that data. Excuse me? I believe you said in that social services meeting that the mayor had not been given the data or an analysis of the data either. Not to my knowledge. Okay. Did you have something you wanted to? I just wanted to add that the council does receive the request as we go through the process. You do receive a copy of the request that the mayor receives as well. Right. So I just wanted to make that clear. Yes, we receive the applications, but we don't receive the monthly or quarterly reports. Okay. The reason I bring that up is because I'm actually the one who made the motion for the council to put, to restore this funding back. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Thank you very much. And in social services standing committee right now, we have, and the commissioner is working diligently with us, to put together a plan to change the way partner agencies are funded. To me, the problem here is that what we've done historically, if you go back many, many years, is when they take a cut, for the most part, it's this 5% or 10% cut across the board. With no respect to, except for like last year, they said that there were four agencies that did not get cut. There's not much of a look at what these individual agencies do for our community. My concern in wanting to put these back in the budget is that when the economy downturned and people began losing their jobs, many of these agencies are the safety net for these folks, and they will all tell you that their doors are being darkened more frequently because of the economy. So when we cut them 10 percent, 5 percent, whatever it's going to be, then that just makes it harder for them to help those who are getting the same kind of cut when they lost their job, et cetera, et cetera, out there in the community. So that's why I made the motion to put this back in. I believe that we've got to work on a system where we either come up with some type of percentage of the general fund that we spend on partner agencies or some type of a needs assessment that allows us to see what the real needs are so that we can put money in those areas and that we can analyze the impact of these agencies on the community. Having said all that, though, I go back to what my colleague Councilman Farmer said, and that is that the mayor, in his own words, said that the purpose for these vetoes and the theme of this budget was to restore ourselves back to solvency. And so if the mayor believes that he has to have these cuts in order to efficiently and effectively manage this government, then I'm going to support that and then work with him to see how we can make that happen. Thank you. Councilman Martin. Thank you, Mayor. You know, the public has demanded austerity, and I think we've all heard that. These are difficult times. It's a difficult budget. UCLA basketball coach John Wooden said that some players are different than others, and some of these agencies right now are more in need than others. Some of them provide direct funding for the homeless, and the reduction of these funds will affect people's what they eat and where they sleep. Had the mayor made cuts to the partner agencies more selectively, and I think with more judgment rather than pursuing a philosophy, I think some of these agencies wouldn't have been cut at all. really what we're talking about here is one-tenth of one percent of the budget. It's not a very big part of the budget. I'm disappointed that the mayor has vetoed crucial social services at a time when they have the greatest need and the disadvantaged are at their greatest moment of need. But I also think that a cross-the-board restoration of all these funds is not just as bad as a cross-the-board cut of it. And so I guess where I am now is that I'm not going to support the motion. I think it's done with good intentions and a good heart. But I don't think this is the time to have an across-the-board restoration of these. But I do hope the council will come back and look at some of these particular agencies who provide funding for very needy people, people who the only thing they own in the world is on their back in a backpack. And I don't think any of us here can hardly understand what that is. The mayor says he wants to restore ourselves to solvency, but I don't think putting $31 million on our credit card is going to do that. And I think that is a more significant issue than one-tenth of one percent. But I will support the mayor on his veto and hope that we can maybe come back with a more selective review of some of these agencies, which I think need their funding. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane. Well, it appears that we will not be overriding the mayor's veto just based on the comments by council members, which is fine because I think one of the good things about this is we did address the issue this evening, and we're probably going to make a decision this evening, which means we can make this a final issue. But there's one area that I'd like to ask the mayor about because I think since we're talking about the budget, how much money we have and how tight it is, I guess the two areas that remain with some uncertainty is public safety and health care costs. And I wonder just if you could touch on that for a minute and maybe tell us what our status on that is. Well, I'll be happy to discuss that. I don't know that that's on the motion. The motion that is before us is what we need to be talking on. But I'll be happy to talk about those issues. Well, the only reason I brought it up, We have been discussing how much fund balance we had and how much additional balance we'd have with the money we'd save on the veto, and I felt like it was relevant to that also. Let me say what I think I've said a couple of times already, and I'll try to say it as succinctly as I can. I said last Thursday when we met that we still have a very rocky road ahead of us. None of us on this council, I don't think, were aware of how serious the health insurance losses have been. We know they are existing today. We know those losses. I call them losses because we're spending more than we're taking in substantially. So we have to fix that. We also have built into this budget savings in collective bargaining. Those two together represent $9 million, unless I'm mistaken. Janet, you're shaking your head, so I'm not mistaken. Okay. So I got those numbers right. That's a big number, a big gap. that's what we have to yet cover so in my view every bit helps and our asking for support across the board is appropriate and it's what we ought to do if we don't get ourselves back to physical solvency financial solvency, then nothing else works. So that has been my point of view. I think it's been consistent, and I think it still is the theme that we're operating on, Council Member Lane. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. My only thought I had is if we're unable to make the number, what options would you say we have as a government? We can talk, we talked about that last week in the meeting in my office. And as we're going downstream, we're going to need to be examining this all the time. Thank you, Mayor. You have my support on that. Thank you. It is not. I believe I said last week that this budget, in my view, is not an event. It is a process. It means that we're going to have to be working it hard all the time. Okay. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciated that Commissioner Mills was able to give us a piece of the puzzle puzzle in terms of those requested pay raises. I wondered if there's anyone with, and you had said there were seven social services related partner agencies. Is there anyone, we might get this all out in the open now, who knows the number for the remaining partner agencies? How many have requested to use our increase for pay raises? because I think there are nine others that weren't included. I would hope, Mayor, that perhaps we can finally get that number. We'll need to confirm that. We'll do that. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. You know, we've danced around a subject that really needs addressing, and it's nothing new. It's been going on for some time, and that's this question about partner agencies. and we paint all of these with the same brush. We have social service agencies. We have economic development agencies, and they need to be looked at not with the same focus on both. The economic development agencies are dealing with dollars that are a multitude higher than what the social service agencies are. And I would think that we would, no matter what we do tonight, we would need to get our sleeves rolled up and address how we handle these two entities rather than roll them into one and throw them out there and say this is what it is because it is not what it is. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. You know, I appreciate the candid conversations that we've had tonight. And one of the reasons I made the motion is so we could have this conversation publicly, because I think communication is the first and foremost strength of this council, and the communication between the mayor and council is even more important. And I can see now that we're building that communication, Mayor, and that's a good step. Last Wednesday was a good step, even better step, to have us around your kitchen table, I like to call it down there, to have those communications, because I think this was the kind of conversations we should have had back before April 12th about all of our agencies, because I do think more conversations are needed. Tonight's motion also reflects that there's new information out there that we didn't know until tonight. I'm not sure when the vice mayor found out about the 10 agencies, but I didn't know about that. Most of you probably didn't know about it either, and that's another issue with communication. We all should have known about that before tonight. Last but not least, a couple other points. One, every single one of us voted to put the money back in. Some of you weren't here for the vote, I understand. But every single person that was here unanimously voted to restore it. Obviously, some things have changed politically. Some things have changed in our economy. I agree with the mayor wholeheartedly. We've got to get back to basics. And now, I think the comment was said earlier, every department was cut. That's not true. Not everything was cut, and not every department was cut equally across the board. We've made efficiency moves, absolutely. But not every department has suffered in this budget. like they can and should coming up in the next six months if we're going to make up $9 million, Mayor Wright. So there's still more cuts, and I've said it from day one. This is not a static budget. This is a dynamic budget because we change it every single day. But I stand behind. These are some of Lexington's poorest and most neediest citizens. And to say we're going to base efficiency moves and balance the budget on the backs of those people that need this the most without a plan to monitor and audit each of the agencies going into it is wrong, and I will never support that as long as I'm sitting on this body and on this council. If we have a plan for it, great. Let's go after those agencies, Vice Mayor, that are giving raises. Let's kick them out of the budget if that's a big issue to this council. Let's have those conversations before April and during this budget year so we can make a better informed decision. But this is not the time to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Council Member Kaye. Domestic Violence Program, Inc., Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center, Inc., Center for Women, Children, and Families, Chrysler's House, Community Action Council, Hope Center, MASH Services of the Bluegrass, Movable Feast of Lexington, Nursing Home Ombudsman Agency of the Bluegrass, Salvation Army, Sunflower Kids, and the Human Rights Commission. Those are the agencies we're talking about who provide social services. Those are the agencies who I think will be most negatively impacted by these cuts. The remaining partner agencies, Environmental Quality Commission, Explorium, Bluegrass Area Development District, Commerce Lexington, Downtown Lexington Corporation, Kentucky World Trade Center, LexArts, Lexington Downtown Development Authority, Lyric Theater, and SCORE. The process which people have talked about is new to me. I'm new on council. But I believe we have said over and over again that given a new administration, there essentially was not time to adequately provide the information that was needed to have the conversations and the time needed to have those conversations between the time the administration takes office and they have to present a budget, and then the council has to kind of modify that. I've had a lot of feedback from people about the mayor's budget, the council's budget. From my perspective, it is not the mayor's budget and it's not the council's budget. It's the community's budget. It's the people's budget. And we are here to do the best we can to take the money we have and allocate it efficiently. I don't think anybody objects to policies that relate to maintaining a solvent government. The question is how will we make choices? What things will we choose to support? What things will we choose not to support? As I said at the beginning, my first comment, I had separated this list and was prepared to make a motion to put back funds for the social service agencies. My sense was that there was not sufficient support on council, so I decided not to make that motion. What I hope going forward is that we have the will to actually revise the process sufficiently so that when we get to this point next year, we are not in a position of wondering about where the information came from or how reliable it is and whether it's who has seen it and who has not seen it. It's not adequate. It's not a good way to make a decision. And maybe my final comment, as far as the process is concerned, again, as a new person, people have asked me how contentious it is. And from the outside, it may look very contentious. And what I want to make clear to the people who kind of care about these things is that it has been what I would consider a very congenial process. People have worked with a goodwill. People have not been resorting to personalities. There's been no conflicts. I, as some people know, work with a lot of different organizations in my professional capacity. And I would say that this has been a body that has worked very well, and I'm proud to be a part of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. K. Okay. Council Member Gordon. Vice Mayor Gordon. Well, I was going to move to call the question, but I noticed that Council Member Myers wanted to speak again, and I wouldn't want to cut him off. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. The reason I moved down in line was because I wanted to say something that might contradict what Councilmember Kaye said, and I didn't want it to sound like I was, you know, going after him. But the reason I asked Commissioner Mills earlier if the mayor or the council was given either those reports or an analysis of the reports with respect to, I know she's only over social services, is because there was time. And that is why we have this issue in committee. It's my belief the process is broken, and it has nothing to do with this mayor. It was here when he got here. It's been here for I don't know how long. But the process is broken because there is not, even though we get these reports quarterly or monthly, no one looks at those reports. So no one does an analysis to see what these agencies are doing, what impact they're having, or what the actual need is. That's why we have this issue in committee, and we're trying to put together a new plan to make that happen. Also, if you've watched any of those committee meetings, there's been a lot of conversation about bringing new money from outside of government into that process. There's been some pushback from different folks in that committee as part of the conversation, but this tonight demonstrates why that needs to happen, because government doesn't have all the answers. They don't have all the money we need to find these solutions. And so I hope that the full council, the full community, all the partner agencies will get involved in what's going on in social services right now so that we can have a vibrant discussion and a holistic, complete process that will hopefully yield a solution that will not land us here in the future so that we'll be able to look at what issues are facing our community, what agencies address those issues, and which ones will have the most impact on those issues, and then how do we fund those going forward. So thank you very much, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Myers. Vice Mayor Gordon. I move to call the question. I move by Council Member Gorton, Vice Mayor Gorton. I'm going to say that three times. Vice Mayor Gorton, seconded by Council Member McCord to call the question. Is there any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion passes. All right. Then we can vote on the question now. Let me make sure that I'm doing this correctly. We can do an electronic vote on the question, and the motion is to override the veto associated with partner agencies. All right. Is everybody clear on that? All right. So a yes vote would be to override. Is that correct? All right. All right. So all in favor of the motion to override the veto, please indicate by voting electronically yes. All those who are going to call the roll, we can just vote electronically. All right. Is everyone voting? All right. The motion fails. All right. Councilman Blues? All right. Okay. Council Member Farmer, do you wish to speak? Yes, sir. All right. Go right ahead. I wanted to – and I did, I appreciated the entire discussion we just had. It was very instructive and good for all of us. Since we're still in budget mode, I wanted to return to the conversation you had begun Commissioner Driscoll about the two big holes still in our budget. And just on the out-around amount for the health insurance, is there any thumbnail or short version of what progress we're making on that? You should have received a handout that is... I did receive that. I'm sorry. And this is for next Tuesday, at which time a presentation will be offered to the council, the Tuesday night council meeting, which will be an update from the consultants related to the health insurance work. I appreciate that. Anytime I can get the answer before the question is complete, it's always good. But on the amount that you placed in the budget to recoup with respect to our collective bargaining agreements, we're greeted with the opportunity tonight that the head of the police and the fire unions are here and in this room. And I don't know what kind of conversation you've had with them or what kind of assurances and partnering you've had with them, but I would like a little background there too, please, sir. And Commissioner Graham is helping us manage that project. And I want to make sure I address the question, but I'm going to be generic because of some confidentiality issues with collective bargaining. I have a very specific focus. Right. So you can be as generic as you like. Okay. We have built-in money in the budget, as he mentioned. Yes. We're currently in negotiations with corrections and fire, and I think we're starting police also soon. We don't have a final signed contract with any of those yet. It's still ongoing, and there's some litigation associated with that too. And that's about all I feel comfortable really talking about in an open session. But there's nothing in joining those partners from those leaders from expressing their partnership opportunity. Certainly not. This government here tonight, if they so chose to. Yes. Thank you. Seeing none running to the microphone, I would encourage you, as our leader in the collective bargaining agreement process, to please let us know as quickly as possible if this hole will not be filled through good partnering with our union partners. That's a very good request, and we'll do our best. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. On that same note, the question is either for yourself or Commissioner Graham. When should we expect the closed session to talk about that litigation? Can we do that tonight? I think we should wait on that because there's going to be a vote a week from Monday regarding the appropriate bargaining unit in the corrections division. And so the results of that vote may impact what's going on litigation-wise. So I don't think a closed session, I think it would be premature right now. So we don't need an update or anything? I'm not comfortable doing that tonight before that vote occurs. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thanks. Well, I think that may be all the comments then related to the budget. I would like to acknowledge and thank all the members of the Council. If I haven't done it adequately, I'll just do it again and I'll keep doing it. You know, as I think upon reflection, I appreciate what Council Member Stenet had to say about moving forward in communication. And I guess maybe I struggle with some of the barnacles or the baggage of having been in the private sector for a long time. When I look at the process that we engage in government, I find it really remarkable, actually, how transparent and how efficient it is and how many remarkable issues really emerge in a process like we engage. You know, I've never seen in the private sector a budget actually so carefully prepared as one is prepared in the city. I never saw it actually on other boards that I've sat on, like Berea College, which does an extraordinary good job of physical responsibility. So for me, it's always really reassuring, and I think it is and should be for the public as well, to know that throughout their government, there is a great effort made, an extraordinary effort made by employees up and down the system. to put together, to create a budget that really amounts to a roadmap, a plan, that guides us for the next year. And what also is great and encouraging is that we want to improve. That's what I heard tonight, is that we want to improve next year on what we did this year. And I suspect that we're going to have plenty of opportunity to do just that. because we do have a rocky road yet to go. Our city, just like cities across the country, has had the really tough headwinds of this economy finally hit us. And the issues we have with pensions, the issues we have with costs having risen on us, They're really real issues. And so our getting our arms around them, our tackling those challenges is a real challenge, but it's also something that I have a lot of confidence in through this council that we can manage and that then this city will come out on the other side of this really tough recession. stronger and better. And that's a big deal. So thank you all very much. Okay, let's move on then to what's next on our agenda. Madam Clerk, can you give us the second reading of ordinances? Most definitely. Ordinance number one, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute and submit a grant application to the Bluegrass Area Development District to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $10,080 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds are for the renovation of the Dunbar Community Center kitchen, the acceptance of which does not obligate the urban county government for the expenditure of funds, appropriating funds pursuant to FY2012 Schedule No. 14 and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number two, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet for the acceptance of additional federal funds for the Ticketing Aggressive Cars and Trucks Program and the amount of $25,000, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $6,250 as a local match in appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule No. 127. Number three, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, which grant funds are on the amount of $348,000 federal funds, are for the ITS-CMS Intelligent Transportation System Congestion Management System Traffic Improvements Project, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $87,000 as a local match. Appropriating funds pursuant to FY2012, Schedule No. 13, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number four, an ordinance authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a change order to the contract with RRT Design and Construction for additional engineering and design services for the materials recovery facility, increasing the contract price by the sum of $70,675 from $1,382,345 to $1,453,020 and appropriating funds pursuant to Schedule number 128. and number 5, an ordinance amending sections 2-189 through 2-197 of the Code of Ordinances, changing the name of the Commission on Community Services for Older Persons to Senior Services Commission. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. There's a motion by Council Member Crosby and a second by, actually we already have one over here, Council Member Lawless by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? All right. Madam Clerk, do you want to call the roll, please? Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Gorton. Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk, the vote reflects passage of the ordinances. Ready to move on? Need to take a break? Okay. All right. Let's roll. First reading. First reading of ordinances next on our agenda. Ordinance number six. An ordinance changing the zone from a neighborhood business B1 zone to a professional office B1 zone for 2.70 net 3.43 gross acres. and from a professional office P1 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 2.31 net, 2.69 gross acres, with a conditional use permit and a dimensional variance for property located at 119, 124, and 125 Louis Place, Dennis Anderson, Investment 1700 LLC. Number seven, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington Fayette-Arvin County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures in appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule Number 21. Number 8. Mayor. Mayor. Mayor. Mayor. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to make a motion to Table Number 8 until September 1st that we have a new, we We will have a new director at Community Corrections, and I think that this is something that, with respect to the new director, a decision that he should be making. So I would like to make a motion to table number eight until September 1st. Second. There is a motion and a motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Crosby. The motion to table is not debatable. So all in favor of the motion to table, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. All right, let's do a hand. Let's do a show of hands, please. All in favor of tabling, please raise your right hand. Yep. Raise it high. Raise it high. You can vote electronically. All right. Go electronically then. All in favor of the table, vote yes. One, two, three, four, five, six. Motion fails. Seven. Motion fails. All right. Madam Clerk. Number 8, an ordinance pursuant to Section 3.02, subsection 10 of the Charter of the Lexington-Faderman County Government, amending Section 21-5.2 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing three positions of Assistant Director of Community Corrections, Grade 119e, and creating one position of Community Corrections Captain, Grade 115e, accepting the voluntary demotions of one employee holding the position of Assistant Director of Community Corrections to Community Corrections Captain, expressing an intent to create the special duty assignment of Bureau Director, providing that pursuant to Section 21-53 of the Code of Ordinances, that employees appointed to special duty assignments serve at the pleasure of the Director of Community Corrections in providing that those employees appointed to a special duty assignment shall receive a leave of absence from their permanent rank for and during the incumbency of any special duty assignment, and providing that employees appointed to the special duty assignment of Bureau Director shall receive a stipend of $800 per pay period, effective July 1, 2011. Mayor. Councilman Martin. On this item, number eight, I made a request earlier today for some additional information from the administration. Some was provided. I was particularly looking for information about the amount of the increase in some salary, comparative salary information. I realize it was short notice from us, although the administration is the one who's brought this forward and had time to put things together. But this is a first reading. If we could get some additional information before this comes back to us. And this is basically converting, I guess, non-collective barting positions to collective barting positions. And I would like to have some sort of additional information to make that decision. Thank you, Mayor. Sir. We'll work on that. Who'd you talk to? We sent an email to, I guess Mr. Bishop responded to it, and Mr. Reed was gracious to, was in the loop on that. So I think we got a couple answers back, but we didn't get any really numbers back. Okay. So we know who should be taking a look at it, right? I think so. Jeff is waving his hand. No, they were very, they got back to me very quickly, but it was incomplete, and I think it would be good to get the more complete picture. Councilman Crosby, you want to speak to this? Yeah, I had concerns with this one, too, and I also voted to try and table it. I guess maybe if whoever brought this forward from the administration could also additionally provide us with information as to the timing of this. They don't have to come up tonight, but if they could just e-mail us. I'm not sure who within the administration brought this forward, But as to the timing of it, we're looking at the best practices from two reports, and one of them is directly out of one of the reports in committee. It just seems like it's not allowing the committees. We're all of us sit up here and say we need to let our committees do the work so we can make good, educated decisions up here, but yet we're seeing a practice come forward that is supposed to be in committee. So I guess my concern is just that we were going to be looking into this and we haven't had the opportunity. So if we could get some kind of memo stating why, there could be a very good logical explanation, but we just don't know that and we haven't had the opportunity to hear it. Thank you. On the same issue, on the same ordinance, Mr. Myers, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Is there someone in the administration that can answer that simple question? Does this change the status of the affected employees with respect to collective bargaining? Leslie? Coming forward there. Yeah. The one person that's moving from an assistant director position will enter the collective bargaining unit. Okay. I was not aware of that change. Thank you. Thank you. I wasn't aware of that change, so, Mayor, I would make the motion to reconsider number eight. Okay. So there's a motion to reconsider the vote on number eight. There's a second. that requires a there's a question regarding a simple majority. It requires a simple majority. Is there any discussion on the motion to reconsider? All right. All in favor of reconsidering. Now this is the motion to table, right? Yes, sir. with the new information that was just provided, I intend to change my vote. Point of order, Mayor. Point of order. Yeah, Vice Mayor, state your point of order, please. I think the motion and the second have to have been on the prevailing side, correct? And I believe I was. Mr. Farmer, you seconded. Okay. I need a second on the prevailing side. You were on the opposing side. All right. So you need a second from someone on the prevailing side. Is there a second from someone on the prevailing side? Motion fails for a second. All right. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to provide a little information to the council in that this problem was, I was advised of it right after the first of the year, that there were assistant directors and the majors at the correctional center were not covered under the collective bargaining agreement, and they had not received any raises for several years. So in some cases, with adjustments to pay for the people that report to them, they were making more money than the supervisor. I sent a letter to the mayor and the CAO, and let me just say this was early on in your administration, so I realized this was not necessarily a high-priority item, just to bring up the issue that was at hand. So this is not some kind of a last-minute deal, you know, to switch this around. This has been a long-term problem that really needs to be resolved. And I'm not an expert on this, but it's my understanding that this has been carefully reviewed by Human Resources, that the pay structure has all been approved based on the experience and the credentials of the individuals that are involved. And it will really basically only affect five people at the corrections or detention center over there, and that would be the two assistant directors, and there are three majors that would be involved in this. Now, I'm not an expert, and so I may have not said everything correctly, but I think the point made that a detailed memorandum explaining this to the council would be appropriate so that everybody will be knowledgeable about the issue and understand what's going on, because it's one of those glitches, I think, that we've had in human resources where we left some people out of the review process for compensation. And I see the commissioner here. Would you bail me out? Just on a small detail, it's only two positions involved, two people at this time. The other thing is it brings corrections consistently under the same type of management structure in terms of appointed people inside the division with fire and police. And we think that's something that would be helpful for all of the directors and chiefs to be able to make some appointments and adjustments at the top level of their next layer of management. I feel that, you know, a memorandum to the council, Commissioner, would be very helpful, just so we'll understand what's going on. I think the biggest question is the communications on this have been a little bit sketchy, and it's been hard for council members that are really not aware of this at all to understand what the situation is. Thank you, Mayor. Just for clarification, has everyone signed on and wished to speak to this ordinance? Okay. Well, I've got Council Member Martin next, then Lawless, then Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, am speaking about item number eight. And I sort of echo what Council Member Lawless indicated. I'm vice chair of the Public Safety Committee. I think we've been asked to look at this very difficult thing. But my concern is about the practice of burrowing, the practice of seeking safety when a big change is about to happen. This happens, you find this in changes in administration at the state level. but here having folks being shifted into collective bargaining positions before sort of a top-to-bottom review of the corrections department, I think is a bad timing of this, and we need to wait until let the committee do its work. And it's also sort of a question of inversion, because we've got folks who have been around a while who are basically having their pay out of balance with a collective bargaining system that we don't participate in at this point. And so, again, I would like to ask council to allow the committee to do its work so we can take a look at this. I guess my last point is that we as the city never look at other cities to find and to look at what other people are paying. We always say, well, they're making more or less than Bob's making in the same department, but we don't compare what the going rate is in Louisville or Cincinnati or Indianapolis or Nashville. And I think every time I ask to see whether we've compared our pay structure to other cities, comparable cities, no one has ever done that, and no one does that. And I think that's just good management practices, and we need to bring that here to city government. So thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lawless. I echo what Council Member Martin said. And the one person that is taking a demotion will then be burrowing in. he will be part of the collective bargaining, but will have the special duty assignment of Bureau Director and be paid the same, which guarantees him he's no longer an appointed. He is in the collective bargaining pool by taking that demotion. So this was brought to us by Director Ron Bishop right as he's leaving, and it is right out of the report that Mr. Boggs or Assistant Chief or whatever, Boggs, out of his report. So I agree with what you're saying. I think it's a bad practice to have people take a demotion just so they can be protected by the collective bargaining and then be paid the same on a special assignment that's made up. Thank you. Councilman Crosby. Yes, I can't comment as to the demotions and the collective bargaining. That's really not my issue with it. The issue is that this is in committee, and the committee has not had the opportunity to do their work. That is my only opposition to moving this forward. I am curious, though, because Commissioner Mason mentioned that there's only two people involved, but there's five positions. So are there just two people, or eventually will there be three additional people? I mean, because the way I read the ordinance, it's five positions, but you're saying there's just two people. But we will have people in these positions, I assume, or we wouldn't even be bringing them up. The majors are already getting stipends. Okay. And that's why it's only affecting two people. So the majors are in this ordinance, but they're already getting stipends? Yes. That had been passed a long time ago. Let me just read something. 2009. Are they in this ordinance? No. This is these two. Well, yeah, my question is I see five positions. There isn't five positions. It's the Section 21-5. Oh, okay. Three positions. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I was reading out loud. I'm sorry. Go ahead. There isn't five positions on the ordinance. The five there is part of that Section 21-5. No, I'm looking at three positions of Assistant Director, Community Corrections, and then one position of Community Corrections Captain, and then one employee holding. The way I'm reading it is there's five different things. I'm not looking at the section. Abolishing three. Okay. I'm sorry. I missed the word abolishing. So it's only two totals. Two people will be receiving the stipend from this proposal or from this ordinance. Just two. One person who is holding the position, a civil service position of assistant director, it's a civil service, he is voluntarily giving up the civil service status that he has and demoting to a captain, which is a part of the collective bargaining unit. Then if he is appointed and receives this stipend, then he will be in the position of the community correction or whatever we've called it here and receive that stipend. If a new director came in and didn't want him in that appointed capacity or the other person, they would lose those stipends and bump back to the position of captain. And how long has Human Resources been looking at? this situation for a couple of weeks. We haven't been looking at it for a long time. I'm not sure what. We calculated the salary and everything involved with it. Okay, thank you. Council Member Lane. The only point I was going to make, because it's already been covered, is that the person involved went from a civil service position to a non-civil service position, but with a union, you know, being a party in the union. So it's a whole change of classification. Here again, this is very complex. That's why I think we need a memorandum just detailing it in specific detail. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. maybe Leslie or maybe Commissioner, you can answer this question. This is cost neutral, right? This is not costing us more money. We're actually saving money by abolishing three positions and creating two. Can anyone speak to that? I thought Mr. Bishop on Tuesday when he gave his presentation and covered this, he said that it was cost neutral, that we actually may save a couple dollars. Right, he did say that. I didn't know if anybody has that information. If you can just include it in that memo that it is cost neutral, it's not costing us more, and then the last point I'll make in speaking with the mover that put the issue of who should run the jail and the best practices on running a jail into committee, this issue is not part of that. The issue that was put into committee was who should run the jail, and that's simply put. It's not how we create rank and file, and I'm going by the mover. And Council Member McKay, you modified that slightly, but this was two different issues we're talking about. So this is not in committee. If you want to put it in there, go right ahead, but this is not in committee. Council Member Lawless. I don't want to rerun the tape, but as I recall, Council Member Kay said we were to study best practices of running the jail. And I do believe that creating special assignments, et cetera, is part of best practices. It's an organizational structure that they're putting in place, and we do not know if that is a best practice. All right. Anybody else wish to speak? If not, then we can move on. Madam Clerk. Ordinance number nine, an ordinance closing portions of Goodloe and Ann Streets, determining that all property owners abutting portions of the streets to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing, and consented thereto in writing, and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a quit claim deed, transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner, subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing utilities in the former right-of-way. Number 10, an ordinance closing a portion of Southeastern Avenue determining that all property owners abutting the portion of the street to be closed have been identified, provided with written notice of the proposed closing, and consented thereto in writing, and authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a quick claim deed transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner subject to the reservation of easements for access and maintenance of existing utilities in the former right-of-way. Number 11, an ordinance amending Section 22-5, two of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of Research Analyst, Grade 118E, and two positions of Counsel and Administrative Specialist, Grade 115E, abolishing three positions of Staff to Counsel 2, Grade 000E, and transferring the incumbents in the Office of the Urban County Council. And number 12, an ordinance amending Section 21-5, two of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one position of Information Officer, grade 113E, in the Division of Communications, and creating one position of Information, I believe that's in the Division of Government Communications, and creating one position of Information Officer, grade 113E, in the Division of Emergency Management 911, and transferring the incumbent effective July 1, 2011. That's it. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions? No motions. All right. Then we can move on to second reading of resolutions. Madam Clerk. Resolution number one, a resolution accepting the bid of Clonch Construction, LLC in the amount of $787,999.10 for the Meadows, Northland, Arlington Neighborhood Improvements Project Phase 3D for the Division of Community Development and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary agreement with Clonch Construction, LLC related to the bid. 2. A resolution accepting the bid of CNR Asphalt, establishing a unit price contract for crack sealing in the amount of $1.15 per pound for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. 3. A resolution accepting the bid of American Pavements, Inc., establishing a unit price contract for asphalt emulsion slurry seal in the amount of $2.18 per square yard for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number four, a resolution accepting the bid of pavement technology, Incorporated establishing a unit price contract for asphalt surface maintenance with an asphalt rejuvenating agent in the amount of .74 cents per square yard for the Division of Streets, Roads, and Forestry. Number five, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept the proposal from Securus Technologies for Provision of Offender Telephone Service at the Detention Center. Number six, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute adopt-a-spot program agreements with Lexington Swingers Golf Club Incorporated, $1,616, Alpha Kappa, $1,023.12, and Alpha Kappa Alpha Etta Road Chapter $636.12 for participation in the adopt-a-spot roadway cleanup program at a cost not to exceed $3,275.24. Number seven, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute amendment number 14 to the contract within TRAN, formerly known as American Consulting Engineers PLC, for professional services for the Newtown Pike Extension Project, increasing the contract price by the sum of $2,088,076 from $6,856,315.51 to $8,944,391.51. Number eight, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement for cost-sharing for the Central Kentucky E911 network with Jessamine County, Woodford County, and additional jurisdictions approved by Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's E911 board at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number nine, a resolution authorizing the Division of Emergency Management 911 to obtain professional services related to the acquisition of a new public safety radio system from RCC Consultants Incorporated, a sole source provider at a cost not to exceed $100,000 and authorizing the mayor to execute any necessary documents. Number 10, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a statement of compliance with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for bridge posting requirements. Number 11, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a contract for services with Group CJ of Lexington, Kentucky for Stormwater Public Outreach and Education for the Division of Environmental Policy at a cost not to exceed $209,000. Number 12, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointment of Brian Reynolds, Environmental Inspector, Grade 113N, 17.132 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective June 27, 2011, ratifying the probationary sworn appointment of Matthew Brotherton, Police Sergeant, Grade 315 N, 28.588, hourly in the Division of Police, effective May 23, 2011, ratifying the permanent civil service appointment of Pamela Proctor, account in Grade 113 E in the Division of Accounting, effective June 13, 2011. Number 13, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Specialty Vehicle Acquisition Corporation, SVAC, doing business as ASC, pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act created by House Bill 3 of the 2009 Extraordinary Legislative Session, whereby Lexington-Payde Irving County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fee that would be otherwise due to it, which shall be retained by ASC for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date established by the Kentucky Business Investment Program subject to the limitations contained in the Kentucky Business Investment Act in any agreement ASC as with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the urban county government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 14, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Transposagian Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act created by House Bill 3 of this 2009 extraordinary legislative session, whereby Lexington-Faylor County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fee that would otherwise be due to it, which shall be retained by Transposagian Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., for a term of not longer than 10 years, from the activation date established by the Kentucky Business Investment Program, subject to the limitations contained in the Kentucky Business Investment Act and any agreement Transfasajan Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. has with the Kentucky Development Finance Authority and the Urban County Government related to the project in taking other related action. Number 15, a resolution approved the granting of an inducement to Lockheed Martin Corporation pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act created by House Bill 3 of the 2009 Extraordinary Legislative Session, whereby Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees that would otherwise be due to it, which shall be retained by Lockheed Martin Corporation for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date established by the Kentucky Business Investment Program subject to the limitations contained in the Kentucky Business Investment Act and any agreement Lockheed Martin Corporation has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. 26. A resolution approving the granting of an inducement to a Neogen Corporation pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act, created by House Bill 3 of the 2009 Extraordinary Legislative Session, whereby Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government agrees to forego the collection of 1% of the occupational license fees that would otherwise be due to it, which shall be retained by a Neogen Corporation for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date established by the Kentucky Business Investment Program, subject to limitations contained in the Kentucky Business Investment Act and in any agreement Neogen Corporation has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 17, a resolution approving the granting of an inducement to Tempur-Pedic International pursuant to the Kentucky Business Investment Act created by House Bill 3 of the 2009 Extraordinary Legislative Session, whereby Lexington-Fayette-Irban County Government agrees to forego the collection of the 1% of the occupational license fees that would otherwise be due to it, which shall be retained by Tempur-Pedic International for a term of not longer than 10 years from the activation date established by the Kentucky Business Investment Program subject to the limitations contained in the Kentucky Business Investment Act and any agreement Tempur-Pedic International has with the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority and the Urban County Government related to the project and taking other related action. Number 18, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute facility usage agreements with various youth baseball leagues for use of baseball fields. Number 19, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a donation from the Citizens Police Academy Alumni Association, CPAAA, for various items and $660 for the Junior Citizens Police Academy Program and $350 for supplies to the Bureau of Patrol Division of Police. Number 20, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute an ACH credit authorization with open portal solutions incorporated for credit deposits. Twenty-one, a resolution promoting open and transparent government and open data and directing the Lexington-Paylorum County Government to develop agreements with regional partners to publish and maintain public data sets that are open and freely available, develop a strategy to adopt prevailing open standards for data, documents, maps, and other formats of media, and organize regional contests to encourage the development of software applications to collect, organize, and share public data. Number 22, a resolution amending Section 1.102 of the Council Rules revising the job responsibilities and supervision of the Council Administrator to include serving as budget analyst and responsibility for training Council members, Council aides, and Corps staff, providing that the term of the appointment of the Corps staff shall be for four years, with the initial term ending on December 31, 2014, and specifying that Council aides shall perform only government-related work. Twenty-three, a resolution approving the job descriptions of the positions of Research Analyst Grade 118E and Council Administrative Specialist Grade 115E for the Urban County Council Office. And twenty-four, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation for water quality sampling and analysis in the West Hickman watershed at a cost not to exceed $57,923. Okay. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are there any other motions? We need to have a motion for a second reading. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. I'm sorry. Yeah. I need a motion to approve. Sorry, I was looking at first readings. Motion by Council Member Crosby, second by Vice Mayor Gorton. Is there any discussion? Then, Madam Clerk, take a roll call, please. Yes, sir. Ms. Henson? Yes. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes, I recuse on number 14. I'll note that in the record. Number 14? Mr. Lane, did you say number 14? Thank you. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Ms. Crosby? Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Gorton? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. The vote reflects passage of the resolutions. All right, next on our agenda, item Roman numeral eight, resolutions for first reading. Madam Clerk, would you give us the first reading of resolutions? Resolution number 25. A resolution accepting the bid of Hayden Construction in the amount of $48,859 for the Warfield Place entrance wall for the Division of Engineering and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary agreement with Hayden Construction related to the bid. 26, a resolution accepting the bids of Clark Power Services, Napa Auto Parts, Republic Diesel, Bowgrass International, Powertrain of Kentucky, Vehicle Maintenance Program, Gilly Hyde, Ford Lincoln, Chrysler Dodge Jeep, Mighty Auto Parts of the Bluegrass, Worldwide Equipment, KOI Auto Parts, Truck Pro Incorporated, Fleet Pride and General Parts Distribution, LLC, doing business as CarQuest Auto Parts, establishing price contracts for vehicles, filters for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. 27, a resolution accepting the bid of John Kinder Electric, establishing a price contract for sanitary sewer pump stations, resistance, testing, and correction for the Division of Water Quality. Mayor. Mayor Gorton. I'm sorry. Vice Mayor Gorton. Council Member Gorton. Vice Mayor Gorton. I just, I was on there for before number 35. Right. To take care of that. Mayor. Yes, sir. Councilman Martin. Since we've stopped the progression, your thing is being taken up later, is that correct? Later. Could I ask for the administration, in times past we have seen where the funds for each of these items come from, given that we have such a tight budget as it is. I know for one, I would like to see maybe funds are either budgeted or funds are bonded or things like that. It might help us sort of watch the bottom line a little bit more. I know that's a little bit extra work for the folks that put these together, but it's just sort of a request if it's possible to help us. Why don't we talk about that and let's see what it would represent. I understand what you're saying. Help us watch the money go by. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Madam Clerk. Yes, sir. Number 27, a resolution accepting the bid of John Kinder Electric establishing a price contract for sanitary sewer pump stations, resistance testing, and correction for the Division of Water Quality. I might have read that already. Sorry. Number 28, a resolution accepting the bid of Leak Eliminators, LLC, establishing a price contract for sanitary sewer system rehabilitation for the Division of Water Quality and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute any necessary agreement with Leak Eliminators, LLC, related to the bid. Number 29, a resolution of the Lexington Fayette-Irban County Council requesting that the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority issue revenue bonds in an amount of up to $336 million, the proceeds of which will be loaned to the Catholic Health Initiatives Incorporated to provide financing for all or a part of the cost of the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of capital projects for health care facilities and related improvements and expenditures. Number 30, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Russell Cave Church of Christ Incorporated, $500, for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. Number 31, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an engineering services agreement with Strand Associates Incorporated for the Lexington Distillery District Improvements Program Feasibility Study for streetscape improvements and the Town Branch Trail along the corridor from Oliver Lewis Way to South Forbes Road at a cost not to exceed $418,000. 32, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a letter agreement with Montjoy Chilton Medley LLP for preparation of the Sheriff's settlement for the 2010 property tax year at a cost not to exceed $12,240. Number 33, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with Kathy H. Witt, sheriff of Fayette County, for the collection of the Ed Verlorms Urban Service District taxes for the 2011 property tax year at a cost not to exceed $350,000 with payment net from collections. 34, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a professional services agreement with Dr. Patricia K. Howard, retaining her to act as the emergency services training coordinator for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services and to provide related services for one year with the option of renewing annually up to five times an annual cost not to exceed $12,050 with an additional annual cost not to exceed $11,450 for each year. A paramedic training program is conducted. 35. Madam Clerk. Yeah. Susan, just a minute. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Gorton has got a motion perhaps for number 35, but it's going to need Commissioner Driscoll's help. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Number 35 is the Human Rights Commission Purchase of Service Agreement. And it's my understanding the $166,960 reflects the amount before the veto. And so I think there need to be some adjustment. The correct amount is $150,260. $150,000, $260. She needs to verify that for you. Can I go ahead and move to amend it? I got that from Elizabeth, so I'm assuming it's correct. So it actually has been adjusted on the board. Our dockets don't say that. Our dockets say 166, 960. You're correct. Your dockets have the incorrect amount. That's correct. But it hasn't been given first reading yet, so it can be read first correctly. Okay. So it won't require a motion then? Right. If she reads it with the corrected amount. Okay. Right? Thank you. Resolution number 35, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the Lexington Fade Urban County Human Rights Commission for purchase of services for FY 2012 at a cost not to exceed $150,260. Number 36, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number 1 to the contract with Woodall Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of Clay's Mill Road improvements project section 2A, increasing the contract price by the sum of $41,964.42 from $3,569,321.10 to $3,611,285. $4,752. Number 37, the resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $18,970 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds, are for the purchase of 20 dumpsters for placement at schools that produce large quantities of recyclable materials, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government for the expenditure of $4,742.50 as a local match, and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 38, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute contract modification number two to the professional services agreement with M2D design group for design of the Isaac Murphy Memorial Art Garden trailhead, increasing the contract price by the sum of $7,500 from $30,101 to $37,601. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amendment to agreement with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the Tates Creek Road Sidewalk Improvements Project to amend the project budget to provide for an increase in the design costs and for right-of-way acquisition at no cost to the urban county government. Number 40, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute contract modification number one to the Engineering Services Agreement with BTEM Engineering Incorporated for the Tates Creek Road Sidewalk Improvements Project increasing the contract price by the sum of $9,500 from $118,478 to $127,978. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the Kentucky Division of Waste Management to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $3,000 Commonwealth of Kentucky funds and are for disposal or recycling of waste tires, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds, and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 42, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if the application is approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $308,854 federal funds under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the continuation of the street sales drug enforcement project, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of funds and authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 43, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to accept a grant from the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, which grant funds are in the amount of $50,000 federal funds, offer continuation of the street sales, drugs, enforcement project, the acceptance of which obligates the Irvin County Government for the expenditure of $16,667 as a local match in authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 44, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute and submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $77,639 federal funds and are for the Project Safe Neighborhood Programs for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Number 45, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the county government to execute and submit a grant application to the U.S. Department of Justice and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this grant application, which grant funds are in the amount of $2,100 federal funds and are for the purchase of bulletproof vest for the Fayette County Sheriff's Office. Number 46, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Dive 911 for the Public Safety Dive Team for training for the division Dive Team training for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services at a cost not to exceed $26,300. Number 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute and submit two grant applications to the Kentucky Department of Education to provide any additional information requested in connection with these grant applications and to accept these grants if the applications are approved, which grant funds are in the amount of $125,240 federal funds and are for the Child Care Food Program $79,040 and the National School Lunch Program $46,200 at the Fair Family Care Center and the Day Treatment Center, the acceptance of which does not obligate the Urban County Government for the expenditure of funds, authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget and authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Fayette County Public Schools for operation of the programs that it cost not to exceed $2.50 for each breakfast and $4 for each lunch at the Day Treatment Center and $2 for each breakfast and $3.50 for each lunch and $1.50 for each snack at the Family Care Center. Number 48, a resolution ratifying the probationary civil service appointments of George Cummins Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 14.836 hourly in the Division of Waste Management, effective July 18, 2011. Wanda Wallen, Equipment Operator Senior, Grade 109N, 18.851 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective July 11, 2011. Ratifying the Permanent Civil Service Appointments of Jessica Williams, Budget Analyst, Grade 115E in the Division of Budgeting, effective June 6, 2011. Nicole Arnett, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N in the Division of Emergency Management, 911, effective June 13, 2011. Joannis Newsome, Telecommunicator, Grade 111N, in the Division of Emergency Management, 911, effective June 13, 2011. Ratifying the unclassified civil service appointment of Philip Burbage, Staff Assistant Senior, Grade 108N, 12.500, hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective upon passage of Council. 49, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a release of easement, an agreement releasing a portion of a sanitary sewer easement on property located at 539 West New Circle Road. Number 50, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a release of easement, releasing a streetlight easement on a property located at 3221 Linville Lane. Number 51, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a facility usage contract with Fayette County Board of Education for the use of the Henry Clay track at a cost not to exceed $78.60. Fifty-two, a resolution authorizing the Division of Police on behalf of the Urban County Government to use Manowar Harley-Davidson as a sole source provider for maintenance and repair of Division motorcycles. Fifty-three, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a certificate of consideration and any other documents necessary and to accept a deed for the property located at 3432 Crimson King Court for the Crimson King Coldstream Stormwater Improvement Project and authorizing payment in the amount of $200,000 plus usual and appropriate closing costs. Fifty-four, a resolution accepting the extension of the time of completion of the SSA Group two-thirds sewer shed field activities raising manholes contracted forward to March 2012 at no additional cost to the urban county government. Fifty-five, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute change order number one to the contract with HDR Engineering Incorporated for the Wolf Run prompt station expansion, increasing the contract price by the sum of $66,500 from $368,550 to $435,050. And now the two walk-ons from the Committee of the Whole is number 56. I'm going to recognize. Council Member Crosby. I just... uh I noticed that we have both our police and fire collective bargaining units here, and I don't know, they may have some information or somebody has some information regarding this. I don't know if we can hear it before it's read or if that's the appropriate time on the new one. I think either before or following is appropriate. Is that all right? Is it Susan? I'm sorry. What Council Member Crosby is saying is that she'd like to invite representatives from our public safety units, right, collective bargaining representatives perhaps, to speak to 56 and 57 either before or after they're read. Either before or after is appropriate. Yes, sir. We have, this has been brought up and brought up and brought up, and I'm not sure that the representatives that they might have, this was walked on on Tuesday, so I'm not sure if information that they may have wanted to share was not available on Tuesday, or speakers were available, so that's all. Thank you. So we'll do it after? It's at the discretion of the council and the mayor, the chair. We can do it before the reading of the resolutions then. All right? So I have, Hillary said to me that Senator Stein was here to speak, so Kathy, Senator Stein. And Mike, are you going to speak as well? Mr. Sweeney. Senator Stein. Okay. All right. Okie dokie. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council. Yes, ma'am. I'm very pleased to be here. I've been very interested in watching this process of good government that you all are doing at this point. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart based upon my recognition of the excellence in our public safety officers from my job before I became a member of the Kentucky Legislature. I was a public defender and a prosecutor, and I worked closely not only with the police department but with the fire department at some times. And we need to recognize here in Lexington that we have the finest among the fine. I believe that there has been an issue that the state government in Frankfort, that we have kind of occupied the field on pension and other issues. And that was an issue that was addressed before. Most of you folks are new. And what I would like to say is that the Fayette County delegation, and I will speak on behalf, I guess, of all of us, because I'm sure it's true, that we will be very happy during the time between now and when we go back in session in January of 2012 to have meetings and to discuss various issues with you. We believe that the collective bargaining ability that has occurred because of legislation in Frankfurt, it's been one of the best things that's happened for this community. At the time prior to that, we were expending huge training costs for public safety officers. They were getting excellent training here in Lexington, and because of low pay and other issues, they were going to other cities, as Councilman Martin had mentioned, that we needed to look at other cities. And they were taking them away from us. Collective bargaining and the ability to sit down and discuss these issues, I think, put a stall to that. Excuse me, I meant to say Representative Martin was kind enough to share with me several days ago some of the work that he had done. And I have studied it, and I'm looking forward to sitting down and meeting with him and others on this so that we can discuss this. But please be assured that the Fayette County delegation is more than willing to sit down, discuss each and every one of these issues. And because Fayette County police and fire are treated differently than anyone else in the state, we clearly already have the ear of our colleagues in both other urban and rural areas within the state. I don't know whether it would be appropriate for me to ask if there are any questions or just let Officer Sweeney speak. I think that would be appropriate, Senator. I see that Council Member Farmer has signed on to speak. Council Member Farmer, do you wish to comment on Senator Stein? I will wait for any presentation and then make commentary. Pardon? I will wait for any presentation and then make commentary. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Officer Sweeney. Well, I'm the president of the Fratern Order Police, and I'm here representing the FOP and the fire union president is here as well. So this is not the first time I've been here addressing this. We addressed this three years ago, our last contract, which was ultimately signed. And at that time, the Law Commissioner, I'm going to ask you, said that again that the city had the right to bargain. The city council had a right to negotiate with the unions. That is not how the legislation was written. 67A of the KRS statute says that, I think it's in our contract under Section 1, Article 2 says that the mayor or his designee shall be in negotiations with the collective bargaining unit, in this case the FOP. We had our FLP attorney here three years ago who said, if you vote this way, again, she said, you're in violation of the KRS. The KRS does not give the city council the authority to do this. And all you're going to say is, well, we've got a charter, and by ordinance we can do this. Our contract trumps the city ordinance. I mean, that's stated directly in our contract. I have no problem with a member of this city council sitting on the collective bargaining unit if they want to. And in doing so, they will be given the same gag order that every other member on both sides of collective bargaining is given, that they can come back and discuss this. If we had to sit and discuss and negotiate with 15 council members our contract, we'd never get anywhere. The mayor authorizes X number of dollars to be negotiated to the unions for these contracts, negotiations. And at purview, the city takes that chunk of money and negotiates within that. I don't know why the city council would want to negotiate any of the non-economic issues within the city, within our collective bargaining contract, the work issues. I don't know why the city would want any part of that. I give a little history of this because there might be some members on here that aren't aware of it. We tried back in the early 2000s to get the city to meet with us under what's called meet and confer. The city council would not do that, would not agree to it. We tried three times, and we finally got collective bargaining through the state, thanks to then-Representative Stein, who was one of the drafters of 67A that helped guide us where we are today. and it wasn't because of previous Mayor Isaac. It was in spite of Mayor Isaac that we have collective bargaining. She tried to get all the council members to sign on at that time against the collective bargaining. It didn't work. We went to the state. We got collective bargaining. There was no issue with collective bargaining under the first contract. The council signed off on it, it was passed, the contract was signed, and we went on. There was no issue. The mayor signed this thing. The council didn't bring up at that point that you have the right, that we have the right to negotiate this contract. There was no point in that. You gave us at that time a tool that made this police department the great department it is today. We were losing, as Senator Stein said, we were losing members left and right to not only larger departments, to smaller departments. We, this city, which is the second largest city in the state, was one of the lowest paid police departments in the state of Kentucky prior to collective bargaining. It is collective bargaining that brought us to where we are today. Three years ago, our second and subsequent contract that was signed and ratified, eventually the mayor signed that contract. And here we are again today, three years later. You had the opportunities within the last three years, Councilman Lane, to go to the state legislature and try to get that law changed so that I guess the city council could have input into our collective bargaining contracts. It's been three years. You've made no attempt to do such thing. So here you are again in the last hour. Excuse me. Just a second. Just I have this unpopular role of being the timekeeper. We typically have three minutes. Good deal. Thanks. Yes, sir. Thanks. So here we are again. We find ourselves in the same boat once again trying to squash this theory that you want to negotiate. You want the entire city council to negotiate with the FOP, Corrections, and the Fire Union. for paying benefits. I urge you again not to let this happen. Because if you do so, we'll never get a contract signed. As it is right now, we're already 120 days plus beyond where we should be in negotiations. Our contract, we should start negotiating on March 1st, and we have not yet started negotiating. Hopefully we'll start on Monday. But I urge you once again, let the negotiation committee do their job, let the city's side negotiation committee do their job, and let us finish our negotiations. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Chris, you want to speak? No. Okay. All right, sir. Council members wish to speak now to... Thank you, Mayor. Senator Stein, I appreciate your spending time with us and being here tonight, your commentary especially. The point you made about having occupied the field is well taken. And I think that Council Member Martin has been reminding us weekly, if not daily, about how much our unfunded liability goes up each year. And your offer for us to spend time with the entire delegation is something that is the best thing that's happened here all evening. Because as the pendulum swang one way before, it has gone another way now. and we're getting up close to a billion dollars in liability here overall. Those are numbers that currently just are not sustainable. And I don't decry the work of those departments, the service of those folks, but everyone's economic reality has changed since October of 2008, and thus my commentary and questions earlier about the mayor's operative opportunity within the newly approved budget, congratulations, Mayor to ask police and fire for some help in plugging some of that. Because I want them to be good partners with us as we've been good partners with them. Mr. Sweeney, I appreciate your being here tonight to talk to us too. Appreciate your service. Chris is too. And I didn't vote in favor of the well-laid motion of Council Member Blaine. because I believe in the way that that agreement process works. This is my 11th year serving the city, and I come from a family business background the same way as the mayor does. And I look at the 3,000-plus employees of this entity that is our government as part of that family. In the last few years, part of that family has had a lot more opportunity presented to it, while other members of that family haven't had the opportunity to have raises and to have situations presented to them. And that's a subtle wedge that's driving itself into our sworn and non-sworn workers in this building and every building the urban county government uses. What's fair for one is fair for all. And I think the challenge before all of us, especially those negotiating, will be to even those differences out, not just in favor of the employees but of the taxpayers of Fayette County. That's a tall order, and it's a tough order. And, Mayor, you have proved early and continually the ability to stay focused and on this issue. This council is going to stand with you on that. And we are going to watch, but we're going to be helpful because I think that at the end of the day, we want to have the best and brightest protecting us in every way possible. But we also want to offer opportunity to the rest of those in government who also serve and put themselves out in whatever way, shape, form, or fashion that they do to make Lexington work on a daily basis. But I just want to make sure that we have the best partnering opportunities with each of these entities. And this is a time to wipe that slate kind of clean and start over as new friends making new agreements. I appreciate your willingness to step up, to be our mayor at this time, and to help make probably the toughest bargain. Bargaining with us was nothing, man. But we're going to be there with you as we move forward. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Stinnett. I'll keep it under 15 minutes, Mayor. if that's okay. No, I want to, Senator Stein, we appreciate you taking time out of your busy schedule to come here. It's always good to see you. And, you know, I want to echo one sentence that Council Member Farmer said, that one of the best things that's happened tonight is a suggestion you made, and actually it's very enlightening that the delegation is poised to sit down with us. I know you can't speak for each one individually, but I assume you'll be the leader on this effort. I will be more than willing to facilitate the union union. As soon as we'll get together, we will be able to do that. Thank you. Thank you. You're right. Well, I know you can't speak for them, but I think that's the first step forward that we haven't heard as a council, and I know a mayor hasn't heard that before, to get an opportunity to sit down. Because what's at stake here, I know we've heard a lot of things about the pension and issues, but it's the future of our city, literally. It's the financial future of our city. It's balancing. It's the public safety ability for our city to be able to offer safety to our citizens. That's what's really at stake, as well as the rest of the government that continue to operate at the levels we're operating. So we need everyone's help. We need the union's help. We need your help. We need the council's help. We definitely need the mayor's help to put an end to this and help us plan for the future. This pension is nearing a billion-dollar issue if you add in the health insurance and other issues tied with it. That's nothing to sneeze at. That could bankrupt our city in the very near future if we don't have a plan going forward. So, again, it's very enlightening hearing that there is a plan. I was going to get to the motion earlier, or actually the first reading. Is it your impression, and from this legislation that passed several years ago, I know you can't speak for your colleagues, but the intention of the agreement is to solely be signed by the mayor, that there was never any intention the council would be able to sign it? because where I'm sitting, they have the opportunity to go back to their units, talk about the contract, and then ratify it amongst themselves. But under this scenario, and the way I interpret the statute, is the mayor is the only one. He doesn't have to come back to us necessarily to sign the contract. Is that? Councilman, Senate, yes, you are correct. It was absolutely the intention of the legislation for the mayor to be the chief bargaining agent on behalf of the city. And the legislation went through, as you can imagine, a lot of farm term harrowing to figure that out. But we recognize that with an urban county council this size and that the best way to do it would be for the mayor and his or her agent to do that. With in mind that the charter says Council approves all contracts, this agreement would supersede the charter in your all's estimation? Well, yes, we do. And I know that that's not popular with a lot of folks, but in the area of the law, just as the federal government can preempt the field of areas that the state can or cannot act, It is my opinion and the opinion of most persons with whom I've spoken that we have preempted the field. Now, that doesn't mean that, well, you know the legislative process. I understand, and I appreciate you showing up. It would be nice if your colleagues would also come with you to help us understand that because I think there's 10 people that represent Fayette County in Frankfort, and we're going to need every one of them in this room eventually to help us solve not just this issue, but all the issues coming forward. I'm sure they'll be happy to because we all do work together and what's best for Fayette County is best for the state and vice versa. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I, too, appreciate Senator Stein's presence, Mr. Sweeney's presence. and I understand the difference of opinion that has been expressed. What I hope we don't get into is the distortion of the council's position or of those members of the council who supported Mr. Lane's motion. The council is not interested in joining a negotiating team. We don't want to do that. And I think the spirit of Mr. Lane's motion is that the Council, since we would bear the heavy responsibility for the consequences of a contract, and Council Member Stinnett has just, I think, clearly articulated the kind of crisis that we're in regarding the pensions. What the Council needs, I believe, is the authority to approve or disapprove the contract, not to negotiate it. And I appreciate that understanding being clear between us. I think that's important. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. And thanks to both of you for coming. And I guess I have to repeat one or two things that were said. It's really important to understand that the statute that we have is identical to the statute that they have in Louisville. And the city of Louisville, the Metro Council up there, they vote up or down on whether or not to approve the collective bargaining agreement that the mayor is going to sign. I passed out the statute to everybody up here in the council. I've got extra copies. But it's the identical statute. And if this is somehow illegal, then they've been acting illegally in Louisville for years. But in fact, we have an opinion of our legal counsel. We have an opinion from the Attorney General who say that this is okay for us to do this. What we're talking about is hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds that we are cut out of the loop on. We're talking about a three-year contract for police, for fire, and for corrections that we have to pay for, that we have to find the funds for, that the taxpayers have to pay for, that we bear the consequence of, but we are not allowed to even look at it before it's signed. And I think that's wrong. That offends me. And I think that it's time for the legislature to allow the city of Lexington to take care of its affairs. This is an unfunded mandate, what the legislature has done to us. And we are going to go broke. And I apologize to Mr. Stennett for repeating the numbers, but our current liability is $537 million. To pay for $537 million over 20 years at 4% requires approximately $39 million a year, about $780 million. And that's assumed that this amount doesn't go up. And it's been going up about $40 million a year. So regardless of the amount of money we've been putting in, our liability has been increasing $40 million a year. This is the definition of a runaway pension, and it is going to bankrupt Lexington unless we really address this. And the way to do that is to, first of all, be involved. And so I think that I feel strongly that the city council has a stake in what's going on. We're not asking to be at the table. We're not asking that you negotiate with us individually. But I think we represent the citizens, and we have the obligation, a fiduciary duty, to look at the contract and to advise the mayor whether we think it's a good idea or not for him to sign it. And I think he can ignore us and sign it anyway. I think the statute clearly says that. But I think we have the obligation, just like your union members do, to look at the contract and advise the mayor about whether we think it's a good idea. I think it shares some of the political risk that's involved in looking at dealing with collective bargaining. But also, we fulfill our fiduciary duty as elected representatives. Do you have something to say? If I may briefly respond, I understand your frustration. I see your frustration. But during this conversation, it's very important that we keep clear we're talking about it's not just apples and oranges. It's broccoli and cantaloupes. We're talking about collective bargaining and we're talking about the pension. Now, clearly we're dealing with some of the same folks, but these are clearly two different issues. In due respect, Senator Stein, the salaries and the benefits that are approved in collective bargaining go directly to the size of the pension liability. Well, clearly they do. Clearly they do. But still, they are two separate entities, very distinct entities within the urban county government and the state government. I understand that they're different entities, and I appreciate that. But I think we have an obligation to advise the mayor about whether or not we think that's a good idea. I think the additional set of eyes, I think, is important because we've become answerable to the citizens for these extremely – this is hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved in these. But, you know, from where I stand, the city of Louisville has been doing this for years. And if this is somehow illegal, then they're illegal. And I think we'll all go to court and we'll have Louisville with us and we'll find out what the courts say about it. Thank you. The Louisville delegation is much different from the Fayette County delegation. We're cuter, though. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Lane. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I am the council member who put the resolution up for reconsideration again. Again, my concern is that these are long-term agreements. They're over $100 million, and there are a lot of terms and conditions on benefits, overtime, et cetera. And really, the council is really out of the loop totally about what it is that is in the agreement. We have not asked to be involved in negotiations. So just to clarify that, all that this resolution says is that the negotiations will be carried out between the mayor or his representative and the unions, and then the unions would submit it to their members for ratification, and once that's approved, it would then be submitted to the council for review and approval. We can't change anything in it. we would have to either approve it or, you know, not ratify it. Now, my concern is that these budgets, public safety is over half of our expenses. That's our primary issue here in Fayette County. And we are elected by the constituents to represent them in the expenditure of their tax dollars, and we are not really doing the job. And I feel like this is a charter issue, that the charter clearly says that we would review agreements, set budgets, and establish appropriations. And I realize, you know, maybe what the intention might have been over there in Frankfurt, but I'd like to call the Commissioner of Law, come up and just speak to that issue, because my feeling is that we should pass this resolution, and then if there's some concern about it, we could take it to court and have the judge review it. Could you look at what our options would be there, please? Thank you, Council Member Lane. And I just want to say I have the highest respect for Senator Stein and have appeared before her judiciary, back when she chaired the Judiciary Committee. So lawyers sometimes disagree, and that certainly doesn't mean that we can't disagree cordially. I do disagree because I think the law department's opinion that we've circulated to you all is one that says we're not in conflict with the state statute. There's nothing in the state statutes that says the mayor can't come before you all and present the agreement once it's been negotiated for an up-or-down vote. I don't think you'll see anything in the state statute that would prohibit you from doing that. So I guess I have a basic disagreement regarding that. And I think if you read the law department's opinion, it goes through the Louisville statute the way that it's phrased similarly to the Lexington one. And the other thing I guess I would say, too, is when a court looks at what the legislative intent is for what the General Assembly did in passing statutes, frequently they don't take individual statements from legislators. They try and look at the body as a whole. And, again, not to express any disrespect or anything, but I think when courts look at that, they look at the text of the statute first, And there's nothing in the text of this statute that would prohibit the mayor from bringing these agreements to y'all for an up or down vote. I'm happy to answer any other questions on that. Thank you very much. And I would just like to close by saying I feel that public safety is our number one duty in Fayette County. And because I am supporting the right of the council to review and ratify or disapprove the collective bargaining agreement, It's not because I'm trying to beat up on the unions, because that's not it at all. As a matter of fact, I challenge anybody to go back and see where I have ever failed to support public safety in any area. I cannot think of an area that I have not supported them on any budgetary issues or any legislation. This is not an issue of the union versus the council. What it is, it's the issue of the council taking its duty seriously, that it's our job as the elected representatives of the taxpayers and citizens of Fayette County to approve these huge contracts, which run, many of them, over $100 million. And I feel that our failure to do so means that we're not doing the duty that we were elected to do on behalf of the taxpayers. So that's why I have continued to bring this up. And I think now that we're in tighter and tighter budgets, this is a more and more serious issue, and we need to have more input on how we're spending the city's money. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Graham, I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. So what you were saying is it's the law department's opinion that should this resolution fail, that there's nothing that stops the mayor from sharing the contract with us and basically doing what we're talking about the resolution doing, right? That's correct. The mayor, in any case, can always consult with anybody he wants to before signing agreements of any type. The way that this is worded, the resolution requires the mayor to come before council so the council has input on the collective bargaining agreement, which is slightly different. but our opinion is that that's a perfectly okay procedure. I guess, Mayor, my question is, are you willing to share with the contract, should this resolution fail, would you be willing to do that with us? Give me the answer question again. Well, I guess if this resolution failed, would you be willing to share the contract details with us, as she was talking about, for an up or down vote or for our opinion as a council? Oh, if the resolution should fail, would I be willing to? Well, you know, I was writing down some notes as we've been having this conversation. You know, first off, Commissioner Graham is very actively involved in the negotiations in a role, in a project management role. I expect to be involved. we will engage these negotiations just like Officer Sweeney, Mr. Bartlett will, in honorably, in an honorable and responsible way. And in fact, you know, our invitation, I think, is what we're hearing today, is that we've got to demonstrate, and we've just got to do this. It's an all-hands-on-deck working together in a partnership. It's really what it has to be today. So, you know, the short answer is engaging this work transparently and responsibly is what we must do. I guess the question is, when you bring it back to us and share with us. I said, yeah. The short answer is that you would share. That's the way we operate. We don't do anything that's not that way. That's everything that this government does. The level of detail and transparency is enormous. That's the longest short answer I've ever heard. That's what Commissioner Driscoll has said by contrast with Louisville. We are dialed up exponentially in transparency. I appreciate that. Again, thank you very much. And I just thank you, Commissioner. Again, Senator Stein, I want to thank you personally for always coming down here. And I can honestly say that you're the most visible and present member of our delegation to these council chambers. And that speaks very well of you and the issues you feel strongly about and want to help educate us. But any one person can't speak for the delegation. I could never say that I can tell you what legislative intent was for the rest of this body. And so while I appreciate you coming down and saying, hey, I'm speaking on behalf of them, I'd like to maybe take it a step further and ask you to just take a message back to the delegation that this council member is asking for the entire delegation's presence at a council meeting August, September, whenever we come back. So we've got time to talk to you all. But rather than maybe a closed session, I think it would be very good to have everyone sitting in this audience so that we can ask questions to whomever and not have to worry about a messenger maybe not carrying the right message or whatever. But if you would take that back to the delegation, I would really appreciate that because I'll just express my frustration with the lack of communication with our delegation. I think there's a lot of issues that our delegation does not understand, nor have they engaged us. It's kind of like us not going to a neighborhood meeting, and those neighborhood presidents really know that neighborhood, and it's not very wise for us to maybe miss their vantage point. As I say, I want to compliment you because you are always here and always accessible. So, again, thank you personally, but would you take that message back on my behalf? Thank you. Absolutely. Thank you. I appreciate it. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I'm having a hard time clearing my throat. Senator Stein, could you come up for just a second, please? First, I want to say that it's an honor to have you here today. And, you know, a few years ago the tables kind of turned, and I spoke to one of your committees when I was in Frankfurt. I remember. And I remember you were very, very gracious to me. And I certainly want to be respectful and gracious to you as well. Appreciate you coming in today. Okay. Earlier, Mr. Sweeney talked about when this was brought before you guys before the council voted, I think, 14-1 against collective bargaining. I don't recall that exactly. I will defer to his information. And they did that in a letter to our delegation. And I kind of feel the same way that Councilmember McCord spoke, that we greatly appreciate you coming and speaking and articulating what you feel like the interpretation and intent was behind that legislation when it was written and passed. But we'd definitely like to hear from everybody because, one, is to hold them accountable also. You're accountable. You're here before us, and you're answering questions. but to hear from them why they feel that way as well. And I guess my question would be to go back to some of the things that Councilman Martin said, and let me just ask you a question. Now that we've clarified that the council does not have any interest in actually being at the table in the bargaining process, but rather what our desire, I think, might be, I can't speak for all of us, is rather that when the agreement has been reached, negotiations are over, the union gets a chance to vote on up or down whether or not they agree with it. That's really what we're asking for is that opportunity to do that. So my question to you is I understand your position on us bargaining, and that makes sense to me to have 15 people trying to bargain, plus the administration position would be unruly. But what is your position on whether or not the council ought to be able to vote up or down on that agreement once it comes out of bargaining, just as the union gets to do? Well, the very nature of collective bargaining is that there is someone on behalf of a group, collective group of workers of some sort who enter into negotiations with management. Now, of course, the police department has management, fire department has management, urban county government has management. And the beauty of collective bargaining is for the group of workers to negotiate a fair contract with the management. And I believe the governor, excuse me, the mayor as the executive in this. Maybe I'm looking in the future. But the executive is the appropriate part of branch of government to enter into that. Now, of course, we're all here tonight, and we've done this for years and years. All of you are elected officials. You have your input to the mayor, to the vice mayor, to others, and that's how it is supposed to work. This is a little bit uncomfortable because it's almost a turf battle. And trust me, we dealt with those issues back for several years in Frankfurt before we actually passed this. Okay, I want to be sure you're done. So help me understand, because I'm not clear. Excuse me. Again, if we were wanting to bargain at the table, I understand your position. but are you saying that this council, as elected representatives to our community, should not have the same right that the union members, when you talked about workers, were sort of those workers on the other side of the fence? Well, that, once again, I'm going to give the short answer, that is the nature of collective bargaining. So you do not think that the council ought to be able to look at that agreement and vote up and down on it before the mayor signs it or doesn't sign it? I think you should have every opportunity to look at it and vote up and down on it. But your vote, if you vote it down, I believe, and with all due respect to the law department, would not have any effect. It would be null and void because of the way the powers have been delegated. Okay. And as Councilmember Martin said, the mayor could ignore our up or down vote. So if you're saying the law negates our vote, that's okay. I just want to know, and I think you've said it, that you're okay with us having that vote. You don't think that we should not have that right? Well, that probably is none of my business because that is something that you all run yourselves just as the state legislature. We organize ourselves. But I think the chief point that I desire to make right now is that it is our belief that we preempted the field on collective bargaining with public safety workers here in Fayette County, and that we laid it out in a manner that the Attorney General and others agree with us that it's the mayor who is the bargaining agent. Okay, one final question, and I know my time is up. So then that's okay. Thank you very much. Oh, well, thank you. Councilman Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Senator Stein, thank you very much for being here and for issuing your invitation. I definitely look forward to meeting with you and our delegation. It'll be good for all of us. I appreciate your being here. I do have a question for Commissioner Graham, because I think the discussion has come around to the reason that I have not been supportive of this. It's been brought up several different years. And when we talk about the agreement goes back to the unions, the agreement goes back, everyone the agreement goes back to has had a seat at the table. So we're, under this proposal, we're asking a group to approve it that's had no input and has not heard any of the discussion. And that is what has always concerned me. And what it would mean is, and perhaps I'm interpreting it wrong, But if the agreement came to the council for a vote and the council voted it down, the council would be voting it down without ever having sat in any negotiations. And that, to me, is problematic because when the unions voted up or down, they've had a representative in there. I'm not asking that the council be at the bargaining table. I don't think that's what would be appropriate. But I am concerned that the council would take a vote on an agreement that was crafted over a number of months, perhaps, with detail that the council had no insight into. And then it might have to be started all over again. So help me get through that, because I think it's a big problem. Well, I think, Vice Mayor, I think what you're asking me is sort of a policy issue. It's a comfort level about how you feel about approving any contract that's negotiated by somebody else. And in this case, a big part of the contract probably in what would be presented to you all would be numbers. So, I mean, people can disagree about numbers, but I think what you're asking me is more of a policy issue than a legal issue. So I think that's something that you all would have to determine your comfort level with the way the negotiations have proceeded and ask any questions about that at the time that it's presented to you. So do you see any, I mean, I see a very clear difference between a council approving it and all the units approving it. They've had someone at the table. I mean, it could end up that a council would vote to disapprove an agreement without having any seat at the table and having any knowledge of the minute-by-minute discussion of the points simply because they didn't like the numbers. when these agreements are crafted on a minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour negotiation. So in essence, the council would be throwing out all of the negotiations if they voted it down, and it's not like other contracts that we approve. Other contracts are not bargained with management and employees. So that's the point that I'm having a lot of difficulty with. And again, I think that's more policy than legal, but, you know, I guess there has to be a comfort level. Anytime you all ratify a contract or the administration brings you a contract, there has to be a comfort level with the way it was negotiated and that kind of thing. So I think those are more policy questions than legal questions, And I guess our opinion addresses the process and believes that the process is appropriate. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I just have just a few questions, and I'll try to be brief. I will preference my comments by saying that I'm a first-term council member who has not been through this process before. So I know this has been a discussion that the council has had. I guess I'll ask the council, as opposed to calling up a representative of the administration, have prior contracts, I think this is weird, we've had two contracts, have prior contracts been presented to council after being executed by the mayor? I mean, they have. After. So they have been, okay, that's good for me to know. I'm sitting here looking at the statute that was provided, 67A, and I'm also looking at the resolution. I will call Commissioner Graham if she will. I do like some of the, I want to be more informed as a first-term council member. I want to be more. The resolution in Section B basically says that the mayor will come back and provide information after he's negotiated with the council. But it calls for the up and down vote, and I'm having a problem with that as well. It says that the council will either accept or reject. It also gives a clause of what basically that if we fail to act, if we fail to approve or reject, that the mayor can go ahead and execute it. That sounds very consistent with what's written in 67A. Yes, that's true. And so with that, there's one phrase in 67A, one clause in 67A that I've highlighted, and it's in Section 2, and it says, no publication thereof shall be required to make it effective. So what I've heard is that the mayor has, previous mayors have brought the contract to us, the details after they've been executed and negotiated and executed. We have that. The mayor has furthermore assured us that he will provide us with the information that we need. My fear is kind of to what Vice Mayor Gordon stated, is that in your legal opinion, if we were to pass this resolution and we voted the agreements down, the mayor could veto, for lack of a better word, and go ahead and execute the contracts anyway, and he would have every legal right under the state statute 67A. Is that correct? I think the contracts would be valid upon his execution and signature. If we were to vote it down on limited information, having not been at the table. So that's somewhat problematic to me. I do appreciate what's been said by council, is that we want to be more informed about the contracts and the negotiations. So I think it gives us an opportunity, if the council is willing, to kind of study and tweak this resolution a little bit more to kind of get us what we want. I see, and I'll sum up what I'm thinking with these words, I see no reason for us to vote up or down if the state law says that we don't have to. If the mayor can execute the contract with no requirement of publication, that's his authority. However, I would say that I would like to know more about the contract I'm not saying that I don't want to be informed But I think that there's a lot of other things and a lot of other topics that we can be doing as a council After the mayor has negotiated And then go ahead and executed the contract with our sworn units Last question I have And this is a legal question And let resolution versus ordinance, if we were to pass this, again, as presented, I would say state law trumps a council resolution. On that question, I think I can address that, Councilman. Okay. And that goes back to what I initially talked about. state law will trump a local ordinance if it's in conflict or if there's a preemption of the field. In other words, if the state statute is so broad that it doesn't leave any room for local regulation. Our opinion that we've given you all is that the resolution is not in conflict with the state statute, this resolution that's being proposed. So we would not view that, and we don't believe the wording of the state statute preempts the field. in other words, wouldn't allow you all to regulate also. So I don't know if that helps answer your question. But we don't believe the state statute trumps either a resolution or if an ordinance were proposed because there's no conflict between what's being proposed here and what's in the state statute. Thank you, Commissioner Graham. I guess I'll sum up. I want more information, but I don't want to disrupt or obstruct the process that was intended via the legislation. Thank you. Okay. We've got four, Councilman Myers, then Lawless, then Martin, then Blues. We're going to do the three-minute, let's start looking at the three-minute rule on, okay. Councilman Myers has said he'll yield because he's already spoken on this to Councilman Lawless. Actually, I think this has been a good discussion, and I hear the mayor saying that he will share the information with us. And I like what Councilmember Ford said about tweaking this so that future mayors would also share the information. But my mind really was made up when I heard Vice Mayor Gorton talk about us voting up and down in a process where we hadn't been through the, and I thought of the Casey Anthony trial where for three months they listened night and day and the jury came back with a not guilty. and the alternates came back with a knock, because we just saw little clips on TV. So if we're not there for that process, then I think doing an up or down vote would be like a juror doing an up or down, guilty or not guilty, at a trial where they weren't there. So that's kind of where I am now. Thank you. I do want to comment on that point myself. I can do it right now. I can do it later. But I think it's probably appropriate now since Vice Mayor mentioned it and since Council Member Lawless. You know, I really struggle with that one because I'm not going to be involved on a day-to-day basis in these negotiations. You know, that's why we hired a consultant. somebody who's a specialist in it. If you look at any contract that this council navigates or endorses, you're not. I'm not either, a lot of them. But it does allow for the conversation. It allows for the debate. It allows for the insights. So what I've said, and I'll keep saying, I'm fine with a hands-off approach as the executive, because others are going to be representing us, me and you. But I'll tell you that the struggle that I've gotten, you know, this is out of enormous respect for Senator Stein, of course, and Mike and Chris and our unions. But, you know, this really does go to home rule. And it was, I remember my brother said to me when he said, you know, you guys have no authority, our city council has no authority over these issues. Kathy, you know, I shared with you that. I discovered that myself when I came on the council. So, you know, it's almost like we, at what point in time do we say on an issue as significant as these issues are that we are going to be engaged? That, in my view, is the question before the council. I'm going to act as responsibly as I said, you know. our partners on the other side of the bargaining table are going to act as responsibly as we can. Having said that, I've learned in the course of being a member of the council that, man, you've got to listen a lot. You've got to really entertain other points of view. and you've got to believe that the healthier environment occurs even with the pain of that occasionally. You know, that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Sunlight is healthy for us. And so I don't think that I'm going to act as an executive any differently, but I have learned, and I'll say that the points of view that are represented around this horseshoe are quite valuable, even though they can be sometimes quite irritating. We've learned that. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your comments. You know, I understand, you know, the Vice Mayor's desire to support the unions, but I don't understand her confusion over the unions' vote up or down on their contract. Our charter is quite clear, although I think the council sort of ignores it from time to time, but the mayor is the presiding officer of the council. It says it plainly in the charter. The mayor is a part of this council. We can't really even meet without the mayor. Members of the public safety unions don't sit at the bargaining table. They're not there. They have to be informed by people who are there. And the mayor, as the presiding officer of our council, is our representative to the collective bargaining. That is the form of government we have. We have a mayor-council form of government. So I don't understand that distinction. I know people are stretching to try to fit it in with their views on this. But we have every right, the same as the members of the union have every right, to be told what the deal is and to give the mayor our input about whether that's a good idea for the city of Lexington. And so I strongly support the motion. I think that this is an unfunded mandate. This is one of those crucial points in history where the vote of the council is crucial because if we continue to have a hands-off approach to the expenditure of really hundreds of millions of dollars, we aren't doing our job. We aren't watching that we can't be caretakers of the public's dollars if we don't even get to see it. And this is a large percentage of our budget. These are three-year contracts, multi-year contracts involving, as I said, hundreds of millions of dollars. And so, you know, I was a longtime member of the AFL-CIO. I was a member of the Musicians' Union. And I realize that's not one of the biggies. But this is not about whether unions are good or bad. This is about us as council members fulfilling our fiduciary duties. and it's about us as council members representing our constituents. And so I urge my fellow council members to give us the same rights that the union members have to tell their representatives whether or not this is a good idea or not. And I think it's our obligation and duty to do that. And if we don't, it's our fault if our finances fall apart. If we step away from the table, we are to blame for the continued collapse of our finances. And so, you know, this sounds all very dramatic, but these are big things at stake, and the zeros are enormous. And so I urge my fellow council members to support this motion, and my time is up. Dr. Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I'm sensitive to the Vice Mayor's concern about the problem of a seat at the table. But there's another dimension of that as well. No, the council members and the council would not sit at the table. But the public doesn't sit at the table. But the public is going to get the bill. And the council is going to hand it to them. And I think that's where we have to take full responsibility for evaluating the costs and the benefits. True, we're not going to be there day to day. monitoring, being involved in the negotiations, the process. Our job would be, and I think our responsibility would be, to review and to approve or disapprove the product, the bill, the liability, the expense that we're going to pass on to the taxpayers whom each of us represents. And I think we can't overlook that fact when we consider who's sitting at the table and the responsibilities of those who are not sitting at the table. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Well, I'm just thinking about what everybody said, and I was thinking about our council, and it's very diversified. We have an educator, people in social services, insurance, law, medicine, sales, publishing, banking, consulting, and real estate. And we bring a collective knowledge really to the council that helps us in reviewing issues that are before us. To me, having 15 sets of eyes to look at the collective bargaining agreement is a good idea. And when we're talking about $100 million maybe in one contract, then in that case, I think we ought to spend more time on that. That's a lot more important than, you know, a $1,500 agreement we're signing. We're spending $100 million. And so I think looking at that is really important. So I'm thinking that we have to exercise our right on behalf of the taxpayers and the citizens to review these agreements and to give some advice and consent to the mayor. So I would encourage everybody to please support this resolution. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Sweeney, could you come up for a second, please? Earlier you said you were describing the process that the union goes through in terms of its negotiations. Let me ask you, do the union members sit at the table, or do they have a representative or a group of representatives? I'm sorry, but do I have? Do the rank-and-file members sit at the negotiation table, or do they have representatives that negotiate? There are eight members plus the president to sit at the negotiations table, and the president is merely a tiebreaker in the up and down bolts of the negotiation members. Okay. When you said earlier that if the council were able to have a seat at the table, there would be a gag order on whoever it was that sat there just like there is on your side. Yes, sir. So help us understand that gag order that's in place on your side. Does your negotiation team go back and share all the details that they're negotiating with the members? They do not. We specifically enact a gag order because if that were the case, and sometimes information slips up, but if that were the case, you'd have rumors going around all over. Somebody went back after a day of negotiation, two days later, and said, well, I hear that we're negotiating for a 4% increase next year, which may or may not be true. Usually it's not true. That's why we tell all of our members on our side, and we ask the same thing as the city's negotiation team, do not discuss this amongst anybody outside of this room. We don't discuss it. Okay. We go to our meeting after the negotiation board, bolts it up or down. We say, okay, we're going to take this to the members. And we take it to our membership along with our attorney. and our attorney explains each and every article to the members how we came about that, how the negotiations team came to that conclusion in a contract, and the members are given an opportunity. Well, after two of these presentations, the members are given an opportunity to vote up and down. The problem we have is if after our members, say, ratified this contract, You take it to the city. My time's, I only have 45 seconds left. So you made an excellent point for me. We heard the vice mayor say earlier that we would be, as a council, voting up or down on something that we didn't get to sit at the table with. But you've just described that that's exactly what the union does. The union does not sit at the table. Their representatives go back after the contract's agreed upon, and they go through detail item by item what's in the contract, explain it to them. And at that point, they voted up or down. Yes, sir. So then it sounds to me like that's exactly what this council is asking for, is an opportunity to hear from the administration what that contract says and then give us as a council an opportunity to vote it up or down. It's the same exact thing that you guys are doing. So let me ask you in my last four seconds, do you have a problem with the council hearing from the administration point by point, this is what's in the contract, and give us an opportunity to vote it up or down before the mayor signs it just like the union has? Yes or no? I think our problem with that is once our side ratifies this contract, and you give this contract or you give this council an opportunity to vote it up or down, and let's say the council votes it down, we've got to go back. That means we have to start all over. We've already ratified a contract on our side. But if you guys vote it down, it's the same thing. We have to go back and start over because the union voted it down. So what is the difference between the council having that same opportunity? And I'll yield my time. If you could answer that, please. Well, the difference is it's going to create a long, arduous process. If after we ratify a contract, we take it back and the city council says, we don't agree with this contract, take it back and do it over. Once your own negotiators on your side have agreed with our negotiators on our side, with police and with fire, we've already agreed collectively on this contract. as the two units, as the city's negotiation unit and as the union's negotiating unit. We've agreed on this. Now if you're telling us we have to take it back yet again, we've already agreed on it, I don't know how we're going to do that. And if it's going to go back and forth, this thing could take forever to ratify a contract. Okay, my question was, though, if the union does not ratify it, you're back in the same situation as if the council doesn't ratify it. Same situation. If the union says no, you've got to go back and tell the administration they didn't accept what you agreed to, to start over. Am I not right? Correct. If the union refused to ratify, and we've not had that problem, our first contract was ratified 98% plus, 99, 8.7. The second contract was ratified over 93%. But if they do refuse to ratify, we start over. If they did, then we would go back to the table. Which is the same thing that would happen if the council didn't ratify. I think you're dealing with a smaller group. You're talking about a group of 400, 500 strong versus 15 council people. But I represent about 23,000 people, and I'm listening to them just like the best of us are. But I don't know why 23,000 people, and I don't know why for that matter, why the council would be concerned about what our non-economic policies are here, about how the disciplinary review board operates or how your grievance committee operates or how your grievance procedure operates or how your work hours operate. These are all things involved in a non-economic end of this. I don't know why the City Council would involve itself in those bargaining issues. Thank you, Senator. My time is up. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councillor McKay. Thank you, Mayor. I don't think this is a question of the Council being adequately informed to make a judgment. Other people have spoken to this. we would be informed by the people who have negotiated for us and by the mayor and his team in the same way that we are on many other issues. I served on the Lex Tran board, which also has a negotiator who negotiates with the union, and they bring that information back to the board, which then either ratifies or does not ratify that contract. There's no question in my mind that having the council be involved in the decision-making process adds a layer of complexity and a possible extension of time and so on. I think that's clear. The question is, is that worth it if you locate the decision-making power in the council? I think that's what's at issue. Is the council going to be a decision-making body in relation to the negotiations with the police department or not? I think it's worth the complexity. I think the council has that responsibility. I think that, as other people have said, there's a huge amount of our budget at stake, and it's the one area that right now we have no input on. I would be comfortable having this particular mayor bring information back to us, and I think he'd listen very well, but he may not be mayor for life, at least. Is that in the plans? Probably not. He's got a long way to go. But in any event, so I have questions about some of the issues. I think we need more conversation, but I'm inclined to support the resolution. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a clarifying question. Detective Sweeney, can you tell me, does the union vote for the entire contract up or down, or do they vote for pieces of the contract? They vote for the entire contract, up or down. Okay, so they're not taking out one thing. It's the entire contract. That's correct. After the contract was read word for word to the body in the meetings, we'll have a vote and the entire contract was voted on, up or down. Thank you. All right. Nobody else has signed up to speak to the resolution. So if there's no question, right? We've got items 56 and 57 need to be read. All right. Madam Clerk, would you read them, please? Resolution number 56, a resolution establishing the procedure for approval of collective bargaining agreements by the Lexington-Fayette-Irban County Council. 57, a resolution amending Appendix A rules and procedures of the Lexington-Fayette-Irban County Council amending Section 2.102 by renaming and restructuring Council standing committees and providing that the Economic Development Committee shall meet quarterly as the Committee of the Whole. And amending Section 2.105 by removing the Committee of the Whole work session, amending Amending Section 2.202 by providing that standing committees shall meet monthly. Amending Section 2.204 by amending the procedure for referring matters to committee and making reports. Amending Section 3.103 by providing the procedure for the introduction of bills. Amending Section 4.102 by providing that the schedule of meetings shall be adopted annually by resolution. And amending the order of business for regular public meetings. amending section 4.104 by providing for a work session of the Irving County Council, providing for the order of business and procedures for the work session effective September 12, 2011. Okay. Thanks, Madam Clerk. Are there any motions for walk-ons? There are? Okay. Council Member Crosby. Sorry, I did not see that. And then Council Member Ford. That's fine. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to make a motion for a resolution changing the street name and property address number of 3473 Yorkshire Medical Park to 3445 Richmond Road. I'll give a brief explanation. Second. Okay. Thank you. I made the motion. And I was going to give an explanation that this is the Boy Scout headquarters, and we changed this address two years ago. It had been through law, public safety, and somehow this got into a pile of address changes a few weeks ago, and we would like for it to remain the same. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Crosby, second by the last mayor. Gordon, is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, I can take a vote. Council Member Crosby, may we restate the motion? I don't have it in front of me. Because I just got it. So a resolution changing the street name and property address number of 3473 Yorkshire Medical Park to 3445 Richmond Road. All right. Well, is there any further discussion on the motion? All right. We've got a second. Vice Mayor Gordon gave it a second. Thank you. Council Member Lane. for the question. Yes, sir. We can get a we'll vote on this one and then we'll go to that one. Okay. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. So we'll ask the clerk to please give it a first reading. Resolution 58, a resolution changed in the street name and property address number of 3473 Yorkshire Medical Park to 3445 Richmond Road. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. I move to place on the docket of resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 700 block of Tremont Avenue. and this was, of course, vetted by the parking authority and other folks. So thank you. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Blues. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The motion carries. Madam Clerk, can you give it a first reading, please? Resolution 59, a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 700 block of Tremont Avenue from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday and waiving the provisions relating to the mechanics of designating residential parking permit areas adopted by Resolution No. 168-90 and amended by Resolution No. 450-91 and 433-2006. Thank you. All right. Are there any other motions? Well, all right. Are there any motions for suspensions? All right. Council Member Crosby. Oh, sorry. Council Member Crosby. It's okay, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to suspend the rules and get a second reading on number 58, please. A motion and a second on number 58. Council Member Lawless. We'll just do these in Globo en masse. Okay. I'd like to suspend the rules and give a second reading to the residential parking permit. Is that 59? 59. Okay. They take quite a long time to get done. Okay. Thank you. Any others? All right. Hearing none, then we can vote on these. All in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Second reading for resolution number 58, a resolution changes the street name and property address number of 3473 Yorkshire Medical Park, 23445 Richmond Road. And second reading of number 59, a resolution establishing a residential parking permit program for the 700 block of Tremont Avenue from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, and waiving the provisions relating to the mechanics of designating residential parking permit areas adopted by resolution number 168-90 and amended by resolutions numbers 450-91 and 433-2006. There's a motion to approve. Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Motion to approve by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Crosby. We need a roll call, right? Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Certainly will. You're faster than me. Ms. Henson. Yes. Mr. Kay. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Ms. Lawless. Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Myers. Yes. Mr. Stennett. Yes. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Ms. Crosby. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford. Yes. And Ms. Gorton. Aye. Thank you. All right. The vote reflects passage of the... Resolutions. Resolutions? Yeah. All right. Next on our agenda, communications from the mayor. Move approval. Second. Is that Council Member Farmer? All right. Approval motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion? All right. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Announcements. I'm sorry. Excuse me here. I'm reading here. All right. Next on our agenda, announcements. I know that Dr. Leach is here. I want to give him a chance to give us an update on the health department. But before asking him, are there any council members with announcements? Council Member Stenet. I just have a couple things, Mayor. And I see Commissioner Taylor back in the room. I understand a couple of our districts are flooding tonight because of heavy rains. I know we have crews out and people out. Is LexCore open if people are watching? And they can call 311 for assistance with the flood. I know we've got quite a heavy rain while we've been sitting here. Yes, you can call 311. And what it will say is if you have a sanitary sewer emergency, which is just hit that one, and then they'll go through it. And we have a person on duty, and we have crews. We have some trees down out Richmond Road, several areas, and we have crews out for that right now, too. Thank you for that update. Also, I understood we were going to have a presentation before we go on break. And the only reason I bring this up is Tuesday is our last opportunity on the streetlight fund. There's a couple of us that have districts that severely need streetlights, and we've been told that's been put on hold. Are we going to have a presentation Tuesday on the status of that fund? We're meeting internally tomorrow to discuss that, and so the answer is we can give you an update. As far as presentation, I'm not sure. I think it would be good because I know a couple of us are waiting on installation of streetlights, and it's been put on hold, and people have were promised this summer. So it's going to be a major issue for six weeks for a couple of us. So if we can have an update Tuesday before we go on break so we can let people know this summer what's going to happen to them. Right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. And then, Mayor, last but not least, I want to thank Lori Houlihan, your office, and everyone on our police department and Sergeant Markham for the success yesterday with the NASCAR hollow parade. There was a lot of people out in Hamburg, well over 1,000 people came out to view it. It was a good economic success. A lot of people eating at restaurants. Downtown was lively yesterday at lunchtime. But thank you to everyone on the council for supporting, and thank you for everyone in your administration, and thank you to NASCAR for bringing it here. Yep. Big deal. It was a big deal. And likewise, the 4th of July, maybe somebody will talk about that. Any other announcements by council members? Okay. All right. I do want to shout out real quickly, it was a great 4th. Everybody who worked on it did a great job, and we all appreciate it, I think. Commander Holman is going to address two disciplinary actions. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member, I do have two disciplinary matters to bring to your attention, one at a time. First one is an allegation was made against Detective William Pursley for violation of General Order 73-2-H, Operational Rules Section 1.11. Detective personally accepted Chief Bassett's recommended punishment of 80-hour suspension without pay. This resolution was also approved by Commissioner Mason. Motion by Council Member Crosby. Second by Vice Mayor Gorton. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Commander. Okay. The second one. An allegation was made against Officer Christopher Mason for a violation of General Order 73-H, Operational Rule Section 1.02. Officer Mason accepted Chief Bastin's recommended punishment of 20-hour suspension without pay and mandatory participation in the Employee Assistance Program. This resolution was also approved by Commissioner Mason. Move approval. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commander. Thanks so much. Unless I'm missing something, any other council members? Okay. Then Dr. Leach is here. He's still here. Thank you, Dr. Leach. I think it was last week. Was it last week? Council Member Stenet had asked for an update on the health department and to the extent that it relates to the health department, the primary care center as well. I would like to say just as a preface and maybe a tee up to Dr. Leach that I've enjoyed even the challenge and the difficulty of working through issues that we've experienced at the health department. And when I say that, what I mean is that I've learned a lot. I think when we engage in meaningful problem solving, we always do. but I can speak for myself and I feel like other members of the administration in saying that Dr. Leach brought to the table very quickly, along with his colleagues from Frankfurt, some real skill sets that helped us navigate through some serious issues that were at one time several months ago close to combustible. Dr. Blues is a member of the board and has been also participated in the transitions and the changes. I'll let Dr. Leach speak now, but I did want to say just from my own point of view and I do appreciate genuinely your willingness to step up, make a change in your job and your career at the time, and help us out. Thank you, sir. Thank you. My name is Rice Leach. I became your public health commissioner on March 1st. About March 15th or 20th, I found we were $2 million in the hole. Then around April 1st, I found out I had cancer, hence the somewhat unusual haircut. It's a 90% cure. I just finished my chemotherapy, and if I'm not as animated as some of you have seen me before, there's a reason. But I'd be tuckered out. But anyway, there have been some things that hit the health department from an external factor, and I want to mention a couple of them. The primary care center gets its permission to use federal procurement and a whole bunch of other things from the Health Resources and Services Administration. I'll call it HRSA. The same organization gave the health department an $11.7 million grant to expand the primary care center. But there were some conditions on that. Some of you know that I ran the primary care center from 2005 until 2010, and before that I ran the state health department for a number of years. I have a foot in both camps here. But among those conditions were when we had our audit of the primary care center in December, they concluded what I had thought and some others had thought for a good while. We were not complying with the terms of the HRSA grant in terms of the primary care center having the autonomy that it's supposed to have. One thing led to another, and negotiations ended, I think, about 10 days ago, with signing of what we call a co-applicant agreement. Without that co-applicant agreement, we've got nothing. We've got no $11.7 million. We have no $2 million to run the program. We have no ability to buy drugs and other things at VA prices. We have no subsidized malpractice insurance. So getting this done was very important. And as a result of an awful lot of work by a lot of people, we got that done. And when we got that grant for the new building, and I helped get that one started before I left, we were going to work with Bluegrass Mental Health and Mental Retardation Board. So HRSA, this side of HRSA, approved it. This side of HRSA says, well, yeah, you can get the money, but there's no way you can work with the Bluegrass Mental Health and Mental Retardation Board because when these guys approved it, they weren't aware of this set of rules. It seems like you all are somewhat familiar with sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. Anyway, so we had to rewrite this thing with a whole new proposal, leaving Bluegrass Mental Health, Mental Retardation out of it, and either leasing, building, or acquiring and modifying a structure that would spend the money to, in effect, double or potentially triple the ability of this primary care center to serve the underserved and the well-served. Anybody from the President of the United States to someone that just drifted into town tonight is welcome at that primary care center. There are no eligibility requirements. There is a sliding scale income. If you have nothing, we charge you next to nothing. If you come in with my health insurance, thank God, by the way, for Medicaid and TRICARE, those of you that served, it's a blessing when you run into what I did. Anyway, we're going to double the size of that thing. So we have been working on acquiring property. And some of you read about the Verizon building. We've been working with other people in town. We're getting short on time to nail down the agreements on this. The Board of Health has done what it needs to do, and we're working with others to get these things finalized so that we can get started in time to have significant progress by September 2012. The department, I ran the public health department, and on paper the primary care center still reports to me and to the Board of Health. But to get this somewhat contentious atmosphere calmed, I step back from messing in the day-to-day affairs of the primary care center. And it has gone along and done very well. They've put in a new electronic medical record, and that's slowed things down. But I've stepped out of the daily operations. And I think once we get completely separated, for example, they have now acquired a 501c3 tax-exempt status from the Secretary of State. So there is an entity called, it's either Health First Bluegrass. That's what they are now on paper. They still are owned by the Board of Health. But we've got Health First Bluegrass over here and the health department over here. And when these things work well, they complement each other. Public health is really in business to promote commerce. Can you imagine what would have not happened to Spain had they kept on buying the cucumbers in Germany? Millions and millions of dollars lost because of a foodborne outbreak that public health guys tend to work on. So we're getting all that stuff put together. We have some financial issues. I mentioned being one and a half to two million dollars in the hole. I heard you debate your budget issues tonight. I was on the receiving end of the state and federal deliberations, and we were told we owed something like $450,000 more to cover the retirements, and we were going to have to pay another $90,000 or $100,000 to get the Medicaid match. And we had our costs go up, and we had some cuts in our grants. And so what does that mean? That means 28 fewer people are working there. About five or six of those positions were lapsed, including some high management positions. And we lost about 15 or 18 staff members because the money ran out. There was no way to make it up. Primary care, the more people they see, if they're insured, the more money they make. We're not that way. We get an allocation, and we can't spend more than was allocated. So when those things contract on the magnitude they did, you have to do it through personnel. And this problem I'm talking about is statewide in Kentucky. It's nationwide as far as the federal grants are concerned. Public health departments all over the nation are losing staff. Alabama lost some, I think it's Alabama, lost 40% of its, one portion of its funding in this last fiscal year. So we are learning what the automobile industry learned about 35, 40 years ago. We've got to restructure. We've got to get 20, 30, 35 miles a gallon. We got around 100, 150,000 miles an hour, a car, and we just have to learn how to do things differently. So what's the impact on Lexington? Well, we transferred two or three things that we were doing to other agencies that had a revenue stream and could pick it up. It's something called the Center for Creative Living out on Nicholasville Road. One of the church groups picked that up. We had something called the Bluegrass Aspendale Teen Center. And I forget off the top of my head which agency picked it up, but we lateraled that one. And we were doing refugee health for Catholic charities, and we found another primary care center in town that was prepared to pick up that work, and they can make money and not lose money on it. So the refugees are getting what they need. They're also getting what they need from public health. Pending issues. This Medicaid managed care that's coming in, they finally picked their vendors, but I don't know in detail how that's going to work. I'm a little apprehensive about that. Our Congress passed a $37 billion budget adjustment back in March. That hasn't hit yet, but the little guys get hit harder than the bigger guys. I think a lot of our federal spending is to hold up Medicaid and Medicare and a few things like that, and that's all well and good, but the money has got to come from somewhere, And I'm quite concerned about that, and I live in Frankfurt and work here, and I hear things in Frankfurt about the worst is yet to come, perhaps. This is me personally speaking. I think we're going to have more fund reduction in certain aspects of public health. But there are things we're supposed to maintain. I mentioned public health supporting commerce. We're the only game in town for controlling outbreaks of communicable disease. The hospitals would do fine with their own situation. But if we had anthrax at the Lexington Post Office that serves eastern Kentucky, guess who has the drugs to treat that? Public health department. When we have an ice storm and we need a shelter for people at home on dialysis or with respirators and things like that, guess who staffs it? Your health department. So we're into preparedness. We're into communicable disease control. We regulate a lot of industries. It's people sometimes forget that by keeping those restaurants safe, I mean, I just got off chemo, man, and I go see a place with a 99 or 100 score, I want to talk to the manager and thank that guy for the work he's doing to make me perfectly comfortable eating at that place. And it's something like 70% of the restaurants score over 90 year in, year out. So it's a balancing act of us helping industry sell the food, give people the jobs. And I tell my staff when they fuss up, I say, yeah, but they sell the food. They pay the staff. They pay the taxes. We get the tax money. I can pay your salary. Sometimes public service workers forget how all that works, but that is how that works. I mentioned the positions, the loss. We've eliminated some revenue generating services, non-revenue generating services, where we were losing money, but these are not things that are required in public health. They were just nice things we were doing. We are going to be seeing fewer people in the public health clinics, but the primary care clinics, we hope to ramp up and do more. And we are concentrating service delivery in high demand areas, areas and there are some very low demand areas where we are going to cut back and possibly eliminate. We have some internal problems you've read about in the newspaper. When I was the director of primary care, I received an anonymous document making some serious allegations about things that were going on in the pharmacy. I've been as high as chief of staff to the surgeon general around the state. My habit has been when I get an allegation like that, we give it to the people who are authorized to investigate it properly. So I turned it over to the state drug control unit. And they have been investigating. They have not finished their investigation. And when they do, they will either find that people did something wrong, did something really wrong, did something stupid but not punishable. And we will deal with those issues when they come up. I've also asked for the Auditor of Public Accounts to look at the health department. The media reports it as he's asking for a fiscal assessment. That is not what I'm asking for. We get what they call A133 audits every year of everything that goes on. I am not worried that there's any hanky-panky going on with the money. I do think we're going to find from her audit that our behavior as an organization has a lot of areas where we can do better. So that's the reason I asked for it. Are there things that we can tighten up? I mean, I've done a lot of things in my 45 years in this stuff, but I'm not an auditor. And auditors find things that managers overlook. So when we get that audit, certainly I'll let the Board of Health know, and if anybody wants to know more, I'd be glad to come back and talk to you about that. Opportunities. We are maintaining effort in this communicable disease control, emergency preparedness, risk reduction. We're not making a nickel's worth of change in cancer screening for women and immunizations for kids and things like that. Our health education program is maintaining itself. It is not growing, but it is not shrinking. And these things that I'm rattling off now are things that Kentucky provides statutes, say you shall do if you are a health department, and if you get no money from anybody else, you're supposed to use your health tax. I'm about done with this stuff. We're going to continue the school nursing program. The schools, the Board of Education has a responsibility for school nursing, but they don't have enough money to do it. So between the health department contributing and Medicaid contributing, contributing, we have a first-class school nursing program here. Just to give you an example of what that does, in addition to taking care of cuts and scratches, they see 38,000 kids a year. That's more than one per student in the system. And 85% of those kids go back to class. So that's about 32,000 times mama doesn't have to come pick the kid up. And to the extent those mothers are working, and they are working in low-income jobs that will fire you if you miss too many days. If you divide 32,000 days by 200 work days a year, I figure somehow we may be contributing as much as 150 FTEs to the Lexington economy by keeping those kids in school, in addition to keeping them in the desk where they can learn what they're supposed to learn. There are all kinds of examples of stuff like that that we do. One last thing. I've been, as I mentioned, I've been doing this, as a matter of fact, it was 45 years and one week ago I started my internship in the U.S. Public Health Service. And I'm of the personal opinion that public health doesn't do a very good job of telling folks like yourself and the Rotary and business community and general public what we do. We come in and we'll quote you all kinds of numbers. I spoke to Mr. Blues about what I should talk to you about. I said I don't think they want the statistical review of the last five years. They probably want to know what's cooking, what's popping, what's likely to backfire. But I do want to tell you that we don't speak to people in terms that they understand. And when you ask us what results are we supposed to get for Lexington with the $16 million that the state, federal, and local tax money gives us, it's kind of hard for somebody to show you that we paved the road or we got the lights or we did whatever we did. So we are working toward defining some outcome results in terms that resonate with the people who ultimately pay the bill. And that's going to take a little work because we're not quite in the habit of doing that. But you'll find that we are going to do that. For example, we have these programs for little children. And they say, well, we had all these kids meet these standards. I say, great. How did they do in kindergarten? If we can show that these early childhood intervention things make for better performance in kindergarten, that increases the probability that they're going to do a better job going through elementary, high school, and college or wherever they're headed. So that's a pretty quick summary of what's going on. We've got some problems. We're working them off. I wrote a letter to the editor of the leader after they wrote what I thought was a pretty nasty cartoon about the primary care center. And then I said, I came back to this job. And I'm 71 years old. I've been tired three times. On the one hand, I don't need this. I've got to tell you, I like this mud rustling better than being a professor at UK. And I came back because there's a wonderful group of men and women working there. And the job we do for the public, there's nothing quite like it. You all are in the same business. You're looking after the public. And the people we serve, the only difference between them and the faculty at the Harvard School of Public Health is they're not quite as educated in some of the technical stuff. They don't have quite as much money, but they're overwhelmingly decent human beings, and we're there as you're there trying to make things better for them. If you have any questions, I'll take them. Rice, thanks a lot. It's an inspiring way to almost help us finish the evening. We've got a couple of questions. Vice Mayor Gordon and Council Member Standard have signed on. I do want to acknowledge that Jeff Reed has done a lot of heavy lifting as well, working with... Skid greasing, too. Sir? He greases some skids for me, too. Well, there's a lot of ways of describing things, and there's one of them. And, you know, I forgot to say Dr. Davis, I said your colleagues in Frankfurt, but Dr. Davis has been very helpful as well, and the commissioner as well. So, Vice Mayor Gordon. Yes, sir. This lady with me is Dr. Stephanie Mosley, and she is a resident in preventive medicine at the University of Kentucky, and she's rotating through our department for 90 days to see what it's like where the tread and the pavement meet. Stand up so we can recognize you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Dr. Leach, thank you so much. I'm really grateful that you were willing to come back and help at the health department get things straightened out. So thank you very much. I wanted to ask you one question. You mentioned the health tax. Can you tell me a little bit about how the allocation works between the health department and primary care? Yes, yes, I've got it here. I don't have the absolute detail, but I've got the highlights. Where do the tax dollars go? We get about $6 or $7 million, depending on the assessment. I think we're pushing $7 million from the city this year. The breast and cervical cancer program gets $680,000. The Center for Creative Living was getting 280. Something called Core Public Health gets 110. The Primary Care Center gets 1.2 million of it. And the Board has asked, and Mr. North agreed, by the way, Dr. Blues, the variables that I sent out in that email that he should measure to show how we're spending that 1.2 million on Fayette County residents who receive services consistent with the public health mission is being met. You spend $968,000 of that money on the school health program. You spend $575,000 on the environmental health program. You spend about $440,000 of it on taking care of children and adolescents, $493,000 on the family planning, $377,000 on tuberculosis, and diabetes prevention and counseling gets about $236,000. There are other funds that support each one of those things, but that's where the lion's share of the tax money goes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thanks. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to ask the same question, but I have another question to follow up. And thank you for coming tonight. You kind of gave us a nutshell and reminded us exactly everything that your two operations do accomplish here in our community and contribute a great deal to the success and quality of life we do enjoy here. But my big question is, you mentioned the employees. What is the morale like out there at this point? I know we all were contacted on the council back in February about issues, and a lot of us hesitated to get actually involved because we wanted to let the process work. What's the morale like today with the employees? Well, compared to when? Well, compared to February. I'll tell you, I'm not going to lie to you. I got my hands full. I had two staff meetings with half the staff in each one, And one of the things that came out from the EEO lady said that one of the biggest problems we have here is supervisors don't know how to treat people right. I'm going to work on that. Okay. Because anybody in this room that's a supervisor knows that if you're treating the people right, they'll step up. I would like to think it's better. People send me thank you notes. They do. There are people who express things. and in these staff meetings there were a couple of people that were really bent out of shape over some aspects of that layoff. And I met, first of all, I spent a lot of time answering their questions in that meeting, and then I met individually with each one of them to hear what they had to say. I don't know whether it's better or not. I hope it is. I promise it's not worse. But it's going to take a while for me to come up here and say morale is really in great shape because that's going to be when people start telling people like Dr. Blues and the Board of Health things are in good shape. Don't take my refusing to brag about something I'm not sure of to mean it's not getting better, but the last thing you need from me is some line about it's looking good, and then you get barraged with letters two weeks from now about get this turkey out of here. No, I appreciate your candor. I think the reason why I ask that is because sometimes the service that we give to the citizens that utilize it is directly related to how happy the workers are working there. So it's a unique service that we do offer, unlike other services in government. So that's why I ask that. If stepping up to the plate and trying harder in the face of adversity is a measure of improving morale, we've certainly got that. Good to hear. Thank you. That's a great way of describing it. happen. I think we all appreciate the way that the way, Rice, that you describe the challenges. And I know that you said this to me several times. You said, you know, the mission is to under-promise and over-perform. Especially, I think, you know, when you've got a turnaround condition. And I know that everyone here appreciates that kind of commitment that you're representing now. So thank you so much. I don't think anybody else has any comments or questions for Dr. Lich. In one simple phrase, we are in business to help people be well, no matter what kind of shape they're in. Thank you, sir. Thanks a bunch. Okay. Any other announcements? Okay. Dr. Blues, do you have – oh, public comment. Robert, how are you, sir? You've been here. You've been waiting patiently all night. Thank you. This is our public comment section of the meeting. Thank you, Mayor. I know everybody's tired. Robert Dalton. Actually, I was walking out the door tonight, told my wife I was coming over here, and she says, well, I'll see you at 10 o'clock. I said, oh, we won't be that long. Silly me. But one of the mini cats that I wear is financial officer of the American Legion Post 341 at 1493 Leestown Road. And I'm just here tonight because I'm promoting our golf outing that we're having next month on Thursday, August 25th at 830. It's going to be at Brook Golf Course, 2260 Lexington Road in Versailles. We're looking for single golfers. We're looking for teams. We're looking especially for sponsors because that's always a great help. You know, being American Legion Post, you know, the money we get goes to help the veterans. And so that's what we're here for. You know, we don't save anything for ourselves. You know, we are out here to help the veterans and the veteran organizations. So if you don't golf, if you know somebody who does, you know, just let them know. I've got some phone numbers and contact names. One is Ron King, 317-0930, or Gary Coulter, 361-8574, or Ernie Land at 338-6647. If anybody loses it, of course, you can get a hold of the vice mayor. She knows how to get a hold of me quite easily by email. No problem there. On a second note, after seeing what's going on tonight, I just want to say thank you to this city council for taking interest. You know, I am just one person. I'm not one of 23,000 in Mr. Myers' district. Actually, I'm in District 1 with Mr. Ford. But, you know, what happens with the unions here also affects me, too. And every time I heard the detective talking, one thing I kept hearing over and over, it seemed to me, was we want our cake and we want to eat it too. Because the union membership, of course they have a representative there to represent them at the table and then take back that contract back to the membership and talk to them and say, yes, do you agree with this or not? But yet our representative, though, isn't able to come back to the city council So Mr. Ford is my representative here to help and make sure that what's being spent here is proper. So it's not fair for that to happen. I'm all about fairness. But when you say one group can do something, this union, and they say, well, you can't do this over here with city government. I'm going to disagree, and I want to say thank you for all of you who stood up on that to say, no, I think we need to get changed. Maybe what Senator Stein said is true, and we need to go back next year and see about adjusting it. I know my time's out. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Dalton. All right. Nobody else has signed up that I have for public comment. So we have a motion from Dr. Blues. Council Member Blues. The fun is not yet over. I'm thinking about my open windows at home. He said that earlier. Perhaps we can move this right along. I do have a motion that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing potential litigation. So moved. Second. The motion by Council Member Blues, second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Motion carries. We are moving into closed session, so if we can ask members of our audience to please leave the room, vacate the room. Thank you. Bye.