Good evening. Good evening, everybody. It's six o'clock. Call the meeting to order. And ask our clerk, Susan Lamb, if she will please call the roll. Mr. Kaye? Here. 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. Ms. Gorton? And Ms. Henson? Here. Thank you. Thank you, Susan. It's my pleasure to welcome Reverend Mark Davis of First Presbyterian Church, who will offer our invocation this evening. And Reverend Davis is reasonably new to our city and is smiling every time I see him. Thank you for standing. Thinking today that it's good to give thanks for the rain. It's what makes the bluegrass green, I guess. It'll make it a lot greener very quickly. The essence of faith begins in gratitude. Let us pray. For all that brings us grateful hearts and grateful lives, we give you thanks. We pray for many reasons and in many directions, but the core source of all prayer is a sense that there is something larger than our efforts that makes them and blesses them and brings forth in them that which is truthful and beautiful and good. Bless the work of this council. May it issue in actions that citizens of this community in the future come to feel that life is good because those they've elected have elected to serve. Help those who have chosen to serve to seek the path of service and to make decisions that will be a cause of blessing and grateful hearts for those for many years to come. In this hope, gather your people here and help them to be of common accord to seek the common good. In this hope, we are gathered to these things we all say. Amen. Mark, thank you. I want to say as you part, Mark, that we often listen carefully to the invocations that are offered and the careful crafting of the language, and we appreciate it a lot. Thank you, sir. I'll ask for a motion. Next on our agenda is the Minutes of Previous Meetings, meetings of May 12, 28, and June 14. Move approval, Mayor. All right. Council Member Beard, given a motion, seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any comments or discussion regarding the Minutes? If there is none, we'll ask for a vote then. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. The motion carries. All right. Next on our agenda is a presentation on the employee health care insurance plan. And I'll ask Benji Mars, Benji's going to make the presentation, and Griggs. Okay. Okay. Let me, while you're coming up to the podium, that's okay, Griggs, go ahead. So just as a bit of an introduction, benefit insurance marketing firm was hired by the government to examine the city's health care system, its costs. I think many of you will remember that we discovered the significance and enormity of the costs that the government is incurring sometime late last fall. And we began working on that problem immediately. the reason I'm sharing this is I think we're going to have to continuously remind ourselves of context as we go downstream on this project. So beginning in mid-November, when we were informed of the problem, we began working to address it. The goal of the council became quickly to get a consultant on board who would help us manage through examining first the problem and then begin addressing it. So tonight is a report from our consultants. They have examined the numbers, the costs, and are prepared to give us a picture of the problem as it exists today. We don't pretend at this point to have all the answers. As we go through this process, discussion and examining of it will be a big part of that process. So I'd like to introduce Briggs Cochran, who is the president, and Benji Mars, who are with Benefits Insurance Marketing. So, Briggs. Great. Thank you, Mayor Gray and members of the council. I understand maybe we might have about 15 minutes, Mayor Gray. Yeah. I think that this is such a significant issue that we will not truncate or necessarily abbreviate it, but I suspect you all have got it to where you are trying to get it within 15 minutes, right? Yes, sir. Okay. We've been engaged by the city on March 1st, and we've taken on quite a labor-intensive effort over the past 120 days. I want to share with you some of the initial results. Perhaps in our discussion agenda here, we'll talk about our project overview, where we have several phases that we're going to work through tonight, kind of culminates phase one, which is recording back to you all our initial findings and observations. We also want to share with you different analysis and really two key observations about LFUCG's health care plan and how you finance and the benefits you provide. And then we'll try to give you some clear next actions, things that we need to be doing over the next 30, 45, 60 days so that we can ultimately get ready for open enrollment and provide your employees with fantastic benefits in the new year. It's going to be challenging. There's a lot of opportunity and a lot of work to do. So that's our agenda. From a project overview standpoint, the first phase is the discovery and data analysis. And that actually started on March 1st to the present. We did a lot of data collection from the carriers. You're currently doing business with Humana on your health care financing. You're doing business with Caremark on your prescription benefit plans. But we extracted a lot of historical data from Humana, from Caremark, and we also did a pretty labor-intensive job of extracting data from the government. With that data, we've aggregated it, And we've done some actuarial analysis of it. We're going to point out some of the things that we've noted about the data we've gathered. We've also taken quite a bit of time trying to understand the historical understanding of your benefits philosophy. Why does LFUCG do what you do? And really trying to understand history, trying to understand your culture. And in that regard, we've talked with finance. We've talked with HR. We've talked with your IT people. and we've talked with legal, so we really have done kind of a broad brush stroke there. And then finally tonight, we'll share with you some of our initial findings. Phase two, we're in that process right now. It doesn't actually complete until August 31st, but we've written four RFPs with the assistance of Todd and Brian in the purchasing area. They've been released. We've also formed a selection committee, which is made up of counsel, as well as employees within the Fayette-Urban County government. And we're going to work through a process of interviewing vendors and interviewing people that can provide solutions to the problems that we perceive and help lead that selection committee through understanding things that are really important, things that might not be important, where you ought to put your weight in your decision-making process, interview finalists, and then finally, hopefully by August 31st, come back with scoring and final recommendations of opportunities that we think can really empower your health care plan and help you get an understanding and control of the cost of it. A lot of work left to do in Phase 2. Phase 3, and they're all opening up there at once, so we'll just go through them. Phase 3 is really going to start from today going forward, and we hope that that will culminate on around September 31st, where we really want to engage all stakeholders, the council, the employees, and the retiree population. We really want to engage them on their opinions, trying to gain their feedback. I know that you all are getting ready to go on a summer break. We're going to work tirelessly to try to give the council as much information as they need, solicit your feedback on ideas that you have, try to incorporate those into the final plans as we work with your selection committee. We'll also do a lot of benchmarking. One of the valuable aspects of our practice is that we have a lot of benchmarking data. In fact, we have benchmarking on over 476 municipalities across this country. We've also done some benchmarking on the state of Kentucky health care plan, the city of Louisville, the city of Chattanooga, and also Knoxville. So I don't think that you all will be short from understanding where your health care costs are, where your benefit structures are, where your employer contribution is, and where employee payroll deductions are relative to other municipalities, and even some of the private sector. And again, we think it's going to be very important to solicit employee feedback and are going to use some technology to do that and be open to your ideas on what's the best way to communicate. Phase four, after we go through the scoring, recommendations, selecting finalists, people that can provide solutions to the problems, we will start out with open enrollment. We've got some technology integration to take care of. We've got vendor implementation. But most importantly, communication. You know, on the previous phase, we solicited opinions from the employees. In this phase, we want to communicate to them how they can be wise stewards of their money, as well as the Lexington Fayette Urban County government's money, how they can make the best choices of benefit plans, how they can understand the cost implications of their health care utilization, help them to understand how much health care they might consume in a new year. So there's going to be a lot of communication to your employees to help them make informed decisions on alternatives that might provide benefits for their family in the new year. And then finally, we will go down into planned maintenance in the new year. And what we want to do is we want to establish measurable goals, metrics that we can actually put our fingers on, start measuring them. One of the metrics, obviously, is total health care spending. Another measurement that we think that we might be introducing into LFUCG is measuring the risk factors in their population. As you look at risk factors which are directly correlated to health care consumption, we really want to get a good x-ray of the employee population understanding what are the risk factors here that are driving health care costs and how might we negate those risk factors so people live more fulfilled, healthier lives. And so that will be a lot of fun as well, very challenging. As I said at the outset, we've really got two observations that we want to share with you tonight. The first one has to do with benchmarking, and that is when we examined your benefit structure relative to other municipalities, and that word up there, state, this is private employers in the state of Kentucky. This is not the state of Kentucky. But when we started examining your benefit structure relative to other employers, to your credit, employees have a very rich level of benefits. In fact, your benefits are in the top percentile of all benefits being offered by other employers, both in the private sector and the public sector. In fact, if you look at it, you have a $0 deductible, 100% coinsurance, which means they've really got zero out-of-pocket expense. Up on average, co-pay $15, $25. It's an average co-pay of $15 for a primary care physician, $25 for a specialist. And the employees on average are contributing $1,445 per year to the cost of that health care through payroll deductions. Interestingly enough, 89% of the population of the government is enrolled in this particular plan. If you look over in the gold plan, this is a little bit more in line with the benchmark in that, as you see, municipalities on average have a $500 deductible, and that particular plan has a $300 deductible. In fact, skip all the way over to that far column. Municipalities on average have a $20 copayment for office visits for both primary care physician and specialist. They have a $500 deductible, then coinsurance to make sure that the employee has no more than an out-of-pocket expense of $2,000. prescription drugs, they're paying $10 for generic and $30 and $45 for brand name. But interestingly enough, they're on average contributing $2,832 towards the cost of their health care. And so, you know, some of the takeaways there, the benefits aren't as rich, and they're paying more for than what you all are currently offering. And, you know, so you've been providing a phenomenal level of benefits. The other observation that we want to make, and we'll spend just a little bit of time, and I'm going to just kind of read right from the script here and maybe provide emphasis to it, but LFUCG has been paying health care costs significantly greater than the defined benefit pool allocation for plan years 2009, 2010, and 2011. I think in the newspaper this morning I saw where they said over the last three years cumulatively you all have actually spent $33 million more in health care costs. Your employees have consumed $33 million of health care, and you assumed a lot less in your premium allocations. In fact, in 2009, they consumed $10.9 million of health care than you assumed that was projected to be consumed. In 2010, they consumed $10.2 million more than was projected, and again in 2011. So that's takeaway number one. And then the second takeaway that we've garnered over the past 120 days is we really don't have any reasonable explanation as to why the true cost of services was not factored into the previous year's health care cost. So those are pretty startling statistics. You know, it's a big problem, and it's going to take some bold, aggressive initiatives to solve that problem, but that's what you're kind of looking at there. If you look at this next slide, in order to get your mind around this, it's important for you to understand how much health care your employees are consuming in aggregate. And when I talk about your employees, I'm talking about active civil service, non-collective bargaining, police, fire, retirees, some of the old city grandfathered employees. We've got about 3,064 employees right now. In fact, you'll see that on that number there. We've got about 3,064 employees that are online right now to consume $32 million worth of health care. Interestingly enough, back in 2009, we had 3,538 employees that actually consumed $30 million of health care. And this is all in. This is what we pay Humana to process the claims, answer the customer service phones fast, provide your employees with ID cards. And then on top of that, you know, 90%, 85%, 90% of those expenses are checks put in envelopes and sent to health care providers, hospitals, doctors, x-ray and lab, prescription drug. But so in 2009, you consumed $30 million of health care with 3,500 employees. It might look like it's kind of flatlining there a little bit. You say, well, what's the trend line? Well, we consumed $30,843,000 in 2009, and we've only consumed $32 million in 2011. But what's startling about that is when you start looking at the number of employees, that was 3,538 employees that consumed that much health care. And this year you've got 3,064. So your health care cost has actually been trending up quite significantly per employee. Part of the reason you've had a migration in your employee population where those satellite divisions were pushed out, I believe it was the Health Department and perhaps Lexington Housing Authority and a few others. I'm going to say one other statement here before we go to the next slide, but I want you to just think about this. If you had 3,064 employees in 2009 and the cost per employee was what it was in 2009, to insure or provide benefits to those same 3,064 employees in 2011, it's costing almost $4.4 million more in 2011 to provide the same amount of health care as those same 3,064 employees were consuming in 2009. Okay? So this gross number kind of looks like it's flattening out, But in reality, you know, the underlying cost per employee is kind of really getting up there. Make sense? I know there's a little bit of a learning curve here, but I apologize. The other thing that we did is we looked at the premium allocations. LFUCG had a premium allocation, which was a projection of what the future health care cost was. And we went back and looked at those premium allocations from some of our discovery process. We found that you actually, through your premium allocations, thought that the projected cost was going to be $19 million. But, you know, bottom line, they consumed $30 million. And then if you fast forward that to 2011, the current year we're in, you know, if you look at the premiums that have been built and allocated, which is a combination of LFUCG contribution and employee payroll deductions, those should total about $19 million when we multiply that all out over 3,064 employees. But right now you're projected to consume about $32 million of health care, which, again, when you add those numbers up, goes back to the $33 million shortfall over the past three years. Taking that a step further, if we wanted to go ahead and put a – Please just – yeah. Can I go back? No. According to the time clock, we've got about 30 seconds. but how far along are you? I know that council members are going to have. I've got one, two slides. That's good. I don't want you to unnecessarily abbreviate it, get your points made, but then there will be comments and questions. This is just a pretty simple graphic. This just shows the red box, which is that unfunded liability amounting to $10 million, $10 million, and online to be $13 million in this coming year. That kind of concludes our first phase observation. And then what do we want to do going forward? One, we want to provide significant education of, you know, again, questions that the council might have about the problem. We might want to talk a little bit about what other forward-thinking cities are doing, what other forward-thinking private employers are doing that we might be able to adopt. We also, again, want to do the in-depth benchmark analysis to really show the true cost of services relative to payroll deductions and your contributions and the benefit structure. And then finally, we want to really develop some strategies to maximize the best available use of your health care dollars. It's going to require some new aggressive management. And, you know, for my selfish professional, you know, advice, I want your employees to not only think about their health care plan as a safety net when they get sick, but perhaps I want your employees to think about how can it improve their health long term. So, Mayor Gray, that ends my comments. All right. Thanks, Briggs. Okay, I'll open the floor to comments or questions by council members. If you all just sign on electronically. I've got Council Member Lawless. Council Member Lawless. Oh, okay. Anybody? All right. Anybody else? Going once. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much for this. One thing that many companies do, and I believe also the state does, is if you're not in the plan, you don't get the benefit. In other words, the $330 that's allocated per employee, if, say, they're on their spouse's plan at another location, another business, then they're not given that money to put in a 401K or whatever they want to do. Can you speak to that practice? Yeah. The scope of our work up to this point in time has not done a deep dive into that, but certainly with our benchmarking, we can tell you the number of employers that don't provide that benefit and the number of employees that do provide that benefit going forward. I think right now you have somewhere around 460 employees that waive health care coverage that would get that $355 allocation, but the scope of our work up to this point in time has not deep dived into that yet. But we will certainly help the selection committee understand that dynamic and that opportunity and then you all will have to make an objective decision. The other question I had was the selection committee, when you send out the RFP for the health care provider, you said that it would be all internal LFUCG employees. Well, the selection committee is actually made up of both counsel and employees as it is formulated right now. Certainly that's counsel and administrations. We would be glad to work with any stakeholder to help think through what the possible solutions are to what we just talked about. Well, one of the comments I got from one of the people that was an employee that was on the committee, I guess, last year or year before last, was it was made up of people that were employees, et cetera, that knew nothing about insurance and knew, you know, they felt like they were, it would be like me being on RF, you know, deciding, you know, a multimillion-dollar contract on, you know, something I know nothing about. And they were frustrated because they felt like they didn't have any information. And so I think they ended up just extending the health care benefits as were. And this was a comment from one of our members of CSEA. I always say that wrong. So one of our, you know, active employees. And so I have a concern about it being internal only if we don't have people externally to give some guidance about this is what other people do. These are the things that can be done. So that's a real concern of mine. Let me see if I can disable that real quick for you. We are the subject matter experts. Right. We know what different solutions, opportunities, challenges based on your footprint, your culture, your budget, and our role will be able to bring all those different ideas, opportunities. I said a little bit earlier, tell you you should put weighting in this. You should not put weighting in that. Here's where you should allocate your dollars. Here's where you should really be exerting an aggressive push. So there is a significant learning curve. Sure. But as consultants, that's going to be our role. So you all will be part of that selection. We're going to be in the trenches with you 24-7. Because that was certainly a big concern. Absolutely. We see that as our role. And you mentioned us taking the health department and the housing authority and satellites. Yeah. Three of those, those three, the Housing Authority, the County Attorney's Office, and the Health Department were, are part of the Kentucky Employee Retirement System, which is cheaper. and using our, but they were the three highest users. The other satellite programs that were nonprofits that had maybe two, three employees, we actually made money off them a little bit. They did not overuse. So when we pushed out the satellites that weren't the three that were in KERS, we certainly at least broke even or lost money. But it wasn't the three that, like, the health department was, which I didn't understand because it seemed like they had doctors and nurses and medicine there. But anyway, I just wanted to make that point. So I appreciate this. It's a great concern, and it's, you know, many municipalities, states, and cities are going broke over health care costs and pensions, and we're certainly one of them. So thank you so very, very much. Thank you. Okay. Susan, you've got the clock going, right? Just as a friendly reminder, the five-minute suggestion will... Oh, I'm sorry. Did I go there? I'm sorry. I didn't interrupt you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. Briggs, thank you for coming down tonight, and thank you for your work so far in walking with the city. And I guess I want to make a couple of points and a couple of observations and facts. One, all of this discussion ultimately is about the health of the folks who work here. I mean, ultimately, it's not about money and it's not about bottom lines. It's about the folks that work inside this building having a better quality of life, being productive in their home life as well as their work life. And so I appreciate you saying that it's not just about your health premiums and what they're going to do, but how do you maximize this for your benefit. And I think as employees we have to understand that that's what we're striving for, is to become a healthier population, because the facts are we're not. I mean, we can all be healthier, but we are not a healthy population of 3,000. and is evidenced by the stats that we see. Another fact is that we are consuming more than we're taking in. We are spending more than we take in for this. And you showed the trend line of $10 million, $10 million, $11 million. We've seen this before. And all we have to do is look at the Police and Fire Pension Fund to see where this goes. One day it becomes a $270 million problem, and you can't hardly fix it, you can't hardly touch it. So this is about trying to get to that before it gets to a point of ridiculousness, as we have seen with some of the other things that we've put off for too many years. But I think what we all have to understand as employees, every single one of us that has this, is that when we go to the doctor, hospital, or pharmacy, it is not Humana that pays that. It is the citizens of Lexington and ourselves. We are self-funded. So the citizens of Lexington are the ones who write the check every time I go to the doctor, hospital, pharmacy, or you do. And while we hand our Humana card to them, sometimes there's a disconnect. And so it's incumbent upon us as a body of 3,000 folks to be as healthy as possible for the folks who are writing the checks, basically for us to be healthy. And we should never lose the fact that the citizens have a vested interest in us doing the very best for ourselves and our families. the other fact I want to point out is that in the mayor's proposed budget in April there was a $3.5 million savings that was going to be found somehow in this year in the mayor's proposed budget there was a way that we brought you all in to help us find that that's a big gamble that's a big gamble and it will be on all of us to help try and do that and find that and I guess the last thing I would say is from where this council member sits, what I would like for you, Briggs, to consider is for us to draw a line in the sand financially and say this is what we're going to spend or we're going to set this mark. And when these employees help get under that mark, I want to see them rewarded, reward the heck out of these folks for changing this culture. So I'm going to put it on you all to find the appropriate sticks and carrots. But if you're going to ask these folks to change their culture, what I want to see is a reward system where they truly see the value and the benefit and not something intrinsic or, you know, oh, we should do this, we're pulling together. No, serious, in-the-pocket or where-they-live type reward because it will take that kind of effort from these folks, and they desperately need to know that every one of us that's in a leadership position is doing this together, but we're also we've set up a system to where you can win, because there's nothing more frustrating than seeing this thing move all the time. But I appreciate your work to this point, but I just want to make sure that folks realize that, and I want to task you with that on the record. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about in 2009, 2010, and 2011, the costs were significantly greater than they had been in the past, but there's no reasonable explanation. Is that something we plan to dig into to find the cause? You know, if – Were there more claims? Did the cost of procedures, medical procedures and so forth, go up significantly? What was the cause? The liability of how much health care your employees would consume was underestimated. Right. In the rear view mirror, you know, our work going forward is going to be looking out the front windshield in terms of how can we plane that out, how can we reduce it, how can we make better use of those dollars. In regard to a retro view, a rear view mirror, you know, just the analysis says that, you know, there's been a significant shortfall that we need to get our eye on going forward is my takeaway from it. Well, and I may be totally wrong, but prior 209, my assumption would be that those estimates would be based on prior cost or their assumptions. So I don't know. I would just be very interested to see what changed. Why did that happen? We have not found a reasonable explanation to date. Again, we're looking at that front view mirror and trying to figure out where we can go forward. And I don't know, I guess I just think that would be a big factor. Yeah, I was going to say that Jane is not here. Is she Jane Driscoll? Jane is here. Right. You might want to, in going back beyond 2009, that meant pre, before PeopleSoft and before the new system. which made it more difficult to collect the data. And the project, if you will, the regrettable loss of Michael Allen, his death, and so much of this project was the best that can be discovered was being managed almost exclusively by Michael. So he's not available, of course, then, regrettably, to answer some of these questions about pre-2009. Have I expressed that adequately? Jane, can you help me? That's my understanding as well, Mayor. And then the last couple of years, recognizing that the pool amounts were not covering health care, they increased a little bit more in the budget, called it the budget subsidy for health care, but that still wasn't enough to cover the true cost of health care. So there were a lot of factors going on. But, again, we are looking forward now. I mean, we understand what those costs were the last few years, that difference that we basically had to make up during the current year as well as the last few years. But we want to look forward and talk about how we can capture savings and continue to provide the health care. Thank you. I also had a question about possibly, and I'm sure during the selection committee maybe we'll get into this more, but I think in addition to we should promote health and wellness and all that and encourage and recognize folks for accomplishing that, But there are people with preexisting conditions that we need to be sensitive to. And so. There's an ironclad safety net. You should eliminate that from your concerns. Because there are some folks maybe with diabetes or whatever. Ironclad safety net. And they could never get to that. Absolutely. Thank you. That would be a concern. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Mayor Briggs. Thank you for coming in tonight. As you know, this is what I do for a living in the private sector, and nothing is more scary to one of my company's employees to see us come in and change the health insurance plan or raise rates or raise benefits. And really our only three options are to get healthier, raise the benefit levels to a point where the plan is not much good to anyone, even if you go, or raise the contribution levels. And it's not going to be an easy task, but one thing I appreciate you saying is looking forward, because we can always look back, and I think one of the problems we had in 2008, and I think Leslie can probably remind us, is we had HMOs as part of our plan, as well as two different health insurance carriers, not just single source. So I think some of those dynamics that we changed in 2008 really changed the way our claims were going to get paid, going to a single source provider, and that being Humana and getting rid of the HMO option. I think that really dramatically changed our claims looking back now. But it is good that we're looking forward. And one question I had, did you all get into why 89% of our employees felt like they need to pay for the platinum plan, but yet they weren't really utilizing the platinum benefits? That's an affordability issue. The payroll deductions, from my professional opinion, would be it was a budgetary, you know, if you can afford it. Also, on the single employees, your benefit pool actually covered the premium allocation at 100% for the single employee. Yeah, because in what comes from it? So there was no reason for that. No incentive. Yeah, thank you. So everyone wanted. Took me a minute to get that up. Yeah, everyone wanted the best because there's no incentive to choose the gold or the other plans. Exactly. And so I think we did miss that boat the last three years. I guess I may have a question for Commissioner Driscoll or maybe Mr. Barrow. He showed us that we project $32 million in health care expenses this year. I guess that's ending FY11 or calendar year 11. Is that calendar year? Yeah, first of all, the numbers that I presented, always fiscal. These were calendar. Okay, just want to make sure I was. Numbers that were aggregate, including dental, and this was health care. Okay, and so the $3.6 million savings that we anticipate in the budget, so we budgeted instead of $32 million, a $29 million, or approximately thereabout, for this fiscal year, costs for health care. Did we just pull it right off the top like that? I don't believe that was a number. I want to say we were going to basically maintain. So the savings, obviously health care gets more expensive every year. So basically the savings is going to offset the traditional health care increase, double-digit health care increase that we would project. Right, but I'm trying to get to what did we budget? If our costs this past year were $32 million, what did we budget for health care costs for this fiscal year? I'd have to get back to you on that. Because logic would say it would be minus $3.6 million, and that's what we budget based on last year, if that's our savings number. Well, including in that savings number would be cost of service rates in January. So it would be multifaceted, as in health care savings and cost of service rates January 1. So it was just half a year we budgeted the savings. Yes, sir. So really it's 7.2 that we're hoping to capture. Yes. Cost of service rates next year will have a full year impact. But can you get the council what we actually budgeted as a council so far this year for FY12 for health care costs? Yes, sir. If you can get us that number, that would be very helpful. And that's across all the funds and the general fund, right? Yes, sir. Yeah, that should be. Because I assume. That's comprehensive. What Briggs showed us was comprehensive. 13 million across the board. Gross. Yes, sir. Very good. Briggs, thank you all. And Benji, thank you for your hard work on this. It is good to have someone, as Councilman Lawless mentioned, from the outside giving us the expertise in order to guide us. because we're all not experts on this. And with the change in rates and costs every day, I haven't seen a health plan for a lot of renewals under 10% in a long time for a lot of our private companies. So we'll see what we can put together for our employees. Thank you all. Council Member Lane. Thank you. I had a question on the health care costs versus the premium allocation. Can we put that chart back up? It doesn't have a number, but. Yes, sir, that's it. The first question I had was the number of employees and retirees. Are those the total number of employees that we have in the government? Are those the total number of employees and retirees who are receiving benefits? That's all in. And that's civil service, non-collective bargaining, corrections bargaining, police, fire, retirees. That's total enrollment. Okay, so those are people that are receiving the benefits. If there are some employees who don't get benefits, they're not included in that number. The people that aren't getting benefits approximate about $460, but we're razor-focused in on health care spending and who's consuming it, and it's $3,064 across your entire spectrum. All right, well, good. That was my first question. My second one would be if you divide that number into $32 million, that comes to about $10,000 per employee, which sounds high, but I guess insurance is high these days. The concern that I've got is that as part of this year's budget, I believe the mayor proposed and we adopted saving about $3.5 million in health care costs. Now, that would be during the fiscal year, and, of course, this new plan will not go in until January 1, which is halfway through the fiscal year, which means that on an annualized basis, we would be having to save about $7 million, and I figure that's about 22 percent of the current number there. Do you feel like that is a reasonable goal with the thought that we might modify the plan, we might improve the way we provide some of the services and drugs, and then we may go into better wellness issues. Absolutely. I think it's very reasonable. And, again, you know, Ryan, and we've been working with Ryan and Jane, and they work in, you know, this is going to go through two budget years. Our vocabulary is always calendar year. And so it has been interesting us coming up with a common vocabulary. But to answer your question, I absolutely think there's opportunities to be, you know, great stewards of those funds and save money as well. And how soon do you think we might have a handle? It would be sort of towards the end of this calendar year, right before we go into the next year, we'll have pricing and ideas. Well, we hope by August 31st we'll have a pro forma of projected health care costs and solutions for the January 2012 calendar year built out and be able to start really honing in on making objective decisions. So we will have that as part of our work product. All right, and my last question is, do you think that it would be appropriate for us to also look at not being self-insured, but just, you know, entering into a contract with an insurance company that provides services and benefits? And the only reason I'm asking that question, with all the changes that are proposed in the health care industry, maybe we need to be tied in with a bigger company that can respond quickly. If Obamacare comes in and the laws change very rapidly, so we won't be caught as a smaller entity behind the eight ball. Or do you feel that with your company, for example, advising us, you'll be right up there and we'll be able to respond, maybe even quicker than the bigger companies can? Well, I absolutely think you need to be self-funded. You're a credible risk. When you have 500 employees, it's almost 100% credible in terms of predicting the future. And so, you know, you shouldn't have too many up and down swings with 3,000 employees where you would need a fully insured flat premium. Companies that have a lot less employees want to avoid that, so they pay a flat premium. But in your all situation, you absolutely need to be self-funded, and there's some things that we're going to look to in potentially buying some reinsurance to protect against catastrophic claim. The federal health care reform has an unlimited benefit structure. And so part of our council, what we're thinking is that we very well might buy some insurance element, but you don't need to fully insure the whole liability, but no stretch. Thank you. I appreciate your feedback. Thank you, Mr. Lowe. Anybody else? Mr. Dennett. Briggs, you made me think about one additional question. Did you all or have you looked at or will you look at changing the plan from a calendar year to a fiscal year? Is there any advantage to the government doing that for budget purposes or being able to make sure we do have enough money? Because what happens is we budget in July and come January where claims are higher than expected, then we have a problem. So is there any advantage either way? I think that with, you know, Ryan and Jane and us working together tightly and really managing the process, that that shouldn't create a whole lot of difficulty for us projecting in a calendar year and running that over two budget years. I think it will be a really tight projection with a small margin of error, plus or minus. So I don't think you need to move anything back. You really would be thinking about maybe extending the current plan year until July 1st of 2012. So I don't think that's needed. Okay. And then in the RFP, you've already put it out to select vendors. In that, did you put, is that just for one year to provide a service, or are we looking at trying to establish a multi-year contract maybe to get a better rate? You know, certainly a multi-year and the leveraging opportunities that gives you to, if you're really partnering with somebody. But, you know, it's kind of difficult, Kevin, to answer that question because there's a number of dynamics on making that decision. Certainly multi-year would be one facet of it, But there's a lot of other criteria that might carry more weight in making that final decision. But, again, we will lead and provide that counsel and advice on how to make those decisions. The RFPs didn't specify the ones we did? Some of them, you know, we actually released four RFPs, and some of them were for a three-year contract. And we asked for multiple-year rate guarantees. We asked for performance guarantees. and so it has been a really aggressive RFP. LFUCG is a marquee employer, one of the largest employers in the county, obviously, and so the competition has been rampant to try to establish a partnership with you all. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thanks. I want to express appreciation to Briggs. I do want to say I appreciate your optimism earlier when you got questions from Councilmember Lane. And earlier you also referred to yourselves in the firm as specialists. And I want to say that with where we are in this today, it's not unexpected that we've got employees here. It's not unexpected that there's going to be anger and frustration and skepticism and suspicion every step of the way. Because where we haven't been aggressively managing this before, and now we're coming in and we're dealing with the problems, it's not at all unexpected that we're going to get a lot of challenge. and so I think having a thick epidermis, a thick skin is going to be essential in this, but also, as you said, it's going to be also essential to have good ears and listen to the difficulty and, in fact, the anger and the frustration that will be represented as we go through these changes that others have been dealing with before now. So I just want to say that because I appreciate your optimism. I like optimism too. But I know that this is going to be a tough road, a lot of moving parts, and not unexpectedly there will be a lot of tension and distress as we go through it. In fact, I was going to say that I know we've got some employee representatives here, and employees here, and instead of waiting for public comments at the end, is it okay with you all if we ask for public comments now from those who want to speak to this issue? I know Pam, Ms. Brandenburg, are you ready to go? You didn't ask me, but I'm inviting. So, yes, ma'am. Pam, are you speaking? You might want to tell us who you're speaking for, too, if you've got several folks. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Everybody you see this CSEA sticker on is a civil service employee. They're classified. They're non-collective bargaining employees. Ladies and gentlemen of the council, Mayor Gray, my name is Pam Brandenburg. I am an employee with the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Government and the president of CSEA AFSCME Local 3562. I do not live in Fayette County. For the last several years, the classified civil service employees have bowed under to the financial difficulties of this beautiful city. We have understood the need to be patient and wait for our turn in the sun, so to speak, when this city rises, as we've been told it will, like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Of all the personnel employed by LFUCG, we have borne the deepest cuts made by this council and the mayor, both past and present, in order to balance the budget. The cuts to personnel were made on classified civil service personnel. We acquiesced, knowing the cuts were necessary, even as we grieved for those whose jobs were cut. We acquiesced when the other groups of employees continued to get substantial raises, and again we were left out. We acquiesced when the medical insurance began to eat into the very small sporadic raises we received in the past few years, 2.6 for those capped out and 2.9 for those not at the cap of their pay in 2008, and the 1% increase in 2009. we had no choice. Council again and again bypassed the ordinance that said our salaries were to be considered first after debt obligation before any special projects, before monies were divided between districts, before anything else our salaries by ordinance were to be considered. But year after year we were put last after everything else was considered and monies divvied out leaving little to nothing for raises for classified civil service employees. In most years, as I said before, the classified civil service employees actually took considerable cuts in take-home pay when increases were made to the insurance premiums. Our benefit pool was and still is a great deal less than our counterparts who have bargained for an increase in theirs. The only time we were considered for a raise in our benefit pool, it was voted down by a person who was part of a collective bargaining group so they could negotiate for something better for themselves. Today again, you're going to be asked to consider new health plans. These health plans will impact all employees, but the ones most impacted will be the classified civil service employees. I'm asking you to consider that this city's shortfall cannot be corrected on the backs of civil service employees. We just cannot afford it, and the only thing it will accomplish will be that we will not be going to the doctor when we need to because we cannot afford to pay the deductibles. That is most likely going to be recommended by the health care presentation, but maybe that is what the managers of the health insurance want. It would mean less money to be paid out on medical claims. However, it would also mean that more employees will be missing work because they are sick, or they will be coming into work and bringing their sicknesses into work with them and passing them all around the offices. Production will go down, work will get sloppy, and morale will sink even lower, and bitterness and resentment will set in even further. Unhappy employees are more likely to give less than their best because they feel unappreciated and slighted. Because if you don't care about us, why should we care about giving our best? Most of us will begin to hate our jobs where we once enjoyed them. We will look at our counterparts who continue to receive what their contract gives them and resent them because we won't be able to help it. We don't want to feel this way, but you've given us no choice. If your ambition has been to divide and conquer, it certainly seems as if you have succeeded. However, you can be sure that if I have anything to do with it, these employees will rise up and fight back. They will do what is necessary to get back on the equal footing all LFUCG employees once enjoyed. I intend to light a fire-vended nation under every classified civil service employee I encounter. The only phoenix rising from the ashes in this city will be the classified civil service employees. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Pam. Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue? All right. Okay. All right, then we can move on. The next part of our agenda is committee reports. Council Member Lawless. Yep. I apologize. Another question came to mind. I believe our benefit for civil service nonunion employees is $330 per month. And $355. Okay, thank you. yet some of the union's portion is for 540, which is more than the insurance costs. And I just wanted to make that statement. That seems a little bit off balance. Thank you. Okay. All right. Did you have anything to say to that, Briggs? Okay. All right. Next on the agenda is the committee reports, item Roman number five, and Council Member Ellinger will provide the committee of the whole report. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. There are three items, two motions. The first motion, there is a motion made to recommend a multi-way stop at the intersection of Pink Pigeon and Planet Place. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, you ready to vote? If you're in favor, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Second motion. There was a motion made to recommend a resolution to be executed by the mayor for fiscal year 12, purchase of search agreement with the Lexington Children's Museum, Inc., doing business as exploring Mablexing to provide education and cultural experience for children and their caregivers that it costs not to exceed $169,047. So moved. Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Blues. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. And the third item was the summer was approved, and that's the end of the report. Mayor, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stendit. Thank you. Could the clerk give us the numbers that each one of those will be on the docket tonight? I can do that. The multi-way stop will be 47. Is that under resolutions? Uh-huh. That is correct, under first reading resolutions. And the PSA with Lexington Children's Museum will be 48. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. 47 and 48, right? Yeah, okay. All right. We're ready for second reading of ordinances. Ready, Madam Clerk? Susan? Thank you. Ordinance number one, an ordinance change in 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 B1 zone to a neighborhood business B1 zone for 2.31 net, 2.69 gross acres with a conditional use permit and dimensional variance. For property located at 119, 124, and 125, Louis Place, Dennis Anderson Investments, 1700, LLC. Number 2, an ordinance amending certain of the budgets of the Lexington-Fade Urban County Government to reflect current requirements for municipal expenditures in appropriating and reappropriating funds, Schedule Number 21. Number 3, an ordinance pursuant to Section 3.02, subsection 10 of the Charter of the Lexington-Fayton-Urban County Government, amending Section 21-52 of the Code of Ordinances abolishing three positions of Assistant Director of Community Corrections, Grade 1, 19E, and creating one position of Community Corrections Captain, Grade 1, 15E, 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 assignment serve at the pleasure of the Director of Community Corrections, and 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. Madam Clerk, we've got a comment from Council Member Lawless on item number three. Actually, I have some questions. Is Mr. Bishop here? No, he's not. One of the things that I've been kind of gathering information on this, and one of the comments was that Ms. Dabney was supervising people that made more than she did. but I haven't been able to get any confirmation on who she supervises. But her, when she went back to captain from major, there were five of them that went from captain to major in 2009 and with special assignment received a stipend of $350 per pay period, which amounts to $9,100 a year, plus the benefits of civil service, including higher insurance, et cetera. And under the proposed plan in number three, her stipend would be raised to $20,800 per month, making her... Per year. I mean, I'm sorry, per year. Um, since she is, there's only one captain, um, price or pay that is higher than hers of 76,226, and that would be 77,999. And there are no more majors, so she only could be supervising captains and people with a lower rank. And she is already getting a stipend of $9,100. I don't understand how she could be supervising people that make more than she does. I think what we're trying to correct is a situation that started several years ago in 07 with the collective bargaining that in subsequent years, captains pay pushed up beyond the majors. That was corrected in 09. And what we're trying to do here is take the three positions of assistant directors and make sure that those positions are not surpassed by majors as they currently have been. There are no majors. There are people that call themselves majors. There are bureau managers. Bureau managers. Right. It's the same thing as a major. My point in this is that she is receiving that stipend, and therefore I don't understand how she could be supervising somebody who makes more than she does when she's making almost the highest amount any captain can make, plus a $9,100 a year stipend, and now would be making $20,800 a year stipend on top of her pay. So who is she managing that makes more than that? Bureau managers that have had salaries move up beyond where her salary is capped. And that's what we're trying to address with these three positions as being appointed positions. Well, she's not an appointed position because she, in 2009, went back to captain. That's what we're trying to create are three positions that will then be appointed positions, just like we have at fire and police. Well, she already has one, or a special assignment is what they call them. Right. But we're trying to create consistency in doing three positions that way. Clay, over your right-hand shoulder is maybe some help or assistance. I'm more than welcome to. There are two collective bargaining groups, officers and sergeants and lieutenants and captains. At the time we started collective bargaining, there were civil service positions called majors, and then there were three or four civil service positions called assistant directors. Correct. In 2009, the majors, those positions were abolished, and all of those employees went back to being a captain and became a part of the collective bargaining agreement. Correct. The director then decided to appoint four of them to a position called bureau manager, which would be similar to major. So four of them were given a stipend of $350. Every two weeks. Yes, per pay period. What this ordinance is wanting to do is take, there were three assistant directors, two of them have retired, so that just left Mr. Camber as a civil service employee. We've created a captain position for him to demote to, and then he would receive a stipend of $800 per pay period to go into the created or the new position of bureau director. Ms. Dabney has been acting in that same capacity. So she is receiving the stipend of a bureau manager, but then she would start receiving also the stipend and then become the bureau director. That way she would be making more than the people she has been supervising for probably over a year or two, but not being compensated for. Okay, and I don't mean to be dumb, but no one gets a stipend higher than $9,100 at this time. Right. The only stipend that exists is the one that the employees are receiving to go from captain to be the bureau manager, which is $350 per pay period. And she currently is receiving that stipend. Yes. And there is only one pay grade that amounts to a little over $1,000 of Captain higher than hers. So where I'm confused is if she, regardless of who she's supervising, there are no majors. So even if there are bureau managers, they're still making the $9,100 a year stipend. So I don't understand how she could be supervising people that make more than she does. When there were three assistant directors as a civil service, two of them retired. Yes, I understand that. She was asked to assume those duties. Okay. So she has been assuming those duties, which means she is responsible for supervising those people who are Bureau managers. So she is supervising the people who she is being paid equivalent to or a little less than. So what this is trying to do now is give her a stipend and make two Bureau directors. She's already receiving the stipend. She's receiving the stipend, $350,000, to be a bureau manager. And the only people that could be making more than her would be somebody receiving a stipend and approximately $1,800 a year more if they had the top-level captain pay because she's at the second to the... So I'm having a hard time understanding how she could be supervising people that make more than she does when she is receiving the stipend of $9,100 and is at the highest, near the highest pay of a captain. When the other, there were three assistant directors. I understand that. They're gone. That's no more. She was asked to assume their duties. I understand that. And she has not been compensated to assume those duties. She currently gets $9,100 stipend per year. To be the Bureau manager. But she is not receiving an additional stipend, and that's what this ordinance would do, is to make the Bureau director for she and Mr. Kammer, and they would be compensated and be supervising the Bureau managers. So the fact that she is not being paid less than those that she supervises today is not really an accurate statement. I was told that she is, there is due to seniority, a captain who is making two captains who are making more. Without a stipend? With the stipend. So she's supervising two people that are making about $1,800 more than her because they also received the stipend. I don't know how much, but they're making more because they are by seniority are making more than her and the captain, plus they're also getting the stipend. Okay. So, I mean, the cap out is, like I say, about $1,800 base pay plus siphon. Council Member Lawless, may I ask you a question? We've got this tough thing called that five-minute rule. How much longer do you think it's going to be? Well, I've been trying. I want to make sure that you get your question answered. Okay, I've been trying to get these questions answered over and over and over again for the last week. So the way the ordinance reads, anybody that's getting a stipend will increase from $350 per pay period to $800, which is $20,800. There will be two levels of stipends, the $350 per pay period for the Bureau manager and then the $800 per pay period for the Bureau director. So Ms. Dabney wouldn't be receiving $350 plus $800. She would just go from receiving $350 to $800. So. Mayor, point of order. I mean, we've heard this over and over. I think we can. No, well, we haven't gotten the answers. The answers have been clear. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. So, Council Member Lawless, are you? All right. I don't need to rule on the point of order. if you're finished. You've completed your questions for now. Mr. Farmer, you had signed on. Let Mr. Farmer. Okay. No. I'm straightforward to move on. All right. Okay. All right. Ordnance number four. Madam Clerk. Yes, sir. Ordinance number four, 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 quick claim deed transferring the former right-of-way to the abutting owner subject to the reservation of easements for access and the maintenance of existing utilities in the former right-of-way. Number five, 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 of the former right-of-way. Number six in the Ordinance Amending Section 22-5-2 of the Code of Ordinances, creating one position of research analyst, grade 118E, and two positions of council administrative specialist, grade 115E, abolishing three positions of staff to council to grade 000E and transferring the incumbents in the office of the Urban County Council. And number seven, in ordinance amending section 21-5, two of the code of ordinances, abolishing one position of information officer, grade 113E, 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 comment effective July 1, 2011. Is there a motion to approve the ordinances? Council Member Blues moves to approve, seconded by Council Member Stennett. Is there any discussion? Council Member Lawless. Is that for... I don't know if this is the time I can do this, but I'd like to make a motion to table number three until September. We don't know what collective bargaining out of corrections is going to produce. And I think that there's still unanswered questions for many council members. So is this the time to make a motion to table number three until September 15th? It'd be the time to do it, yeah. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so there's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second to table. The motion to table is non-debatable. Are you ready to vote on the motion table? All in favor of tabling, item number three, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, no. No. All right. Let's talk. Can we do an electronic? Okay. All in favor of tabling, please vote electronically yes. All against it, vote electronically no. The motion to table fails. Okay. Let me just say parenthetically, we will, if we need to come back to this with some folks who have some concerns over this, we can certainly do that from the administration point of view, and I will encourage that. We need to, even though it failed is what I'm saying, you know, I've got questions, we need to help answer them. All right. We have a motion to approve the ordinances, and we have a second. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Most definitely. Mr. K? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes, but no on number three. I will denote your vote. Thank you. Mr. Martin? No on number three, but yes on the rest. I will denote your vote. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stinnett? Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? Yes. Mr. Farmer? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Ford? Yes. And Ms. Henson? Yes. Okay. The vote reflects passage of the ordinances. Okay. Madam Clerk, if you're ready, when you're ready, go ahead and give us a second reading on resolutions. Resolution number one, 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 Irvin County Government to execute any necessary agreement with Hayden Construction related to the bid. Number two, a resolution accepting the bids of Clark Power Services, Napa Auto Parts, Republic Diesel, Bluegrass 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 a price contract for vehicle filters for the Division of Facilities and Fleet Management. Number three, 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. Number four, 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 Irvin County Government to execute any necessary agreement with Leak Eliminators, LLC related to the bid. Number five, a resolution of the Lexington-Fade Irvin 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 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 six, 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 seven, 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. Number eight, 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 nine, 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 ad valorem urban service district taxes for the 2011 property tax year at a cost not to exceed $350,000 with payment net from the collections. Number 10, 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 at 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. Number 11, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Lexington Fayette-Urban County Human Rights Commission for purchase of services for FY2012 at a cost not to exceed $150,260. Number 12, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Woodall Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of Clay's Mill Road Improvement Project. Section 2A, increasing the contract price by the sum of $41,964.42 from $3,569,321.10 to $3,611,285.52. Number 13, a 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 14, 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 15, 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 cost and for right-of-way acquisition at no cost to the urban county government. Number 16, 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 17, 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 are authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 18, 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 are for continuation of the street sales drug enforcement project, acceptance of which does not obligate the Irvin County Government for the expenditure funds and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 19, 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 are for continuation of the street sales drug enforcement project, the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government for the expenditure of $16,667 as a local match and authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Number 20. 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 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 Neighborhoods Program for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky. 21. 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 $2,100 federal funds and are for the purchase of bulletproof vests for the Fayette County Sheriff's Office. 22. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with the Dive 911 for Public Safety Dive Team Training for the Division of Fire and Emergency Services at a cost not to exceed $26,300. Twenty-three. 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 Family Care Center and the Day Treatment Center, 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 Fayette County Public Schools for operation of the programs at a cost not to exceed $2.50 for each breakfast and $4.00 for each lunch at the Day Treatment Center and $2 for each breakfast, $3.50 for each lunch, and $1.50 for each snack at the Family Care Center. Twenty-five, excuse me, twenty-four. 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 Larnett, telecommunity, grade 111N, in the Division of Emergency Management 911, effective June 13, 2011, Joanna Newsom, 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 108 and 12.500 hourly in the Division of Water Quality, effective upon passage of council. Twenty-five, a resolution authorizing and direct to the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a release of easement and agreement releasing a portion of a cemetery sewer easement on property located at 539 West New Circle Road. Twenty-six, a resolution authorizing and direct to the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a release of easement releasing a street light easement on property located at 3221 Linville Lane. 27, 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. 28, 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. Twenty-nine, 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. 30, number 30, a resolution accepting the extension of time of completion of the SSA Group Two-thirds Sewer Shed Field Activities Raising Manholes Contract 4 to March 2012 at no additional cost to the Irvin County Government. Number 31, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute Change Order No. 1 to the contract with HDR Engineering Incorporated for the Wolf Run pump station expansion, increasing the contract price by the sum of $66,500 from $368,550 to $435,050. Number 32, a resolution establishing the procedure of approval of collective bargaining agreements by the Lexington-Fade Urban County Council. And number 33, a resolution amending Appendix A, Rules and Procedures of the Lexington-Phadar 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. Amending Section 2.105 by removing the Committee of the Whole Work Session. 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 regular reports. Amending Section 3.103 by providing the procedure for the introduction of bills. Amending Section 4.102 by providing that the schedule of the meeting shall be adopted annually by resolution and amending the order of business for regular public meetings and amending Section 4.104 by providing for a work session of the Urban County Council, providing for the order of business and procedures for the work session effective September 12, 2011. Thank you, Susan. Is there a motion to approve the resolutions? Motion by Council Member Kaye, second by Council Member Blues. Is there any discussion regarding the resolutions? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? Yes. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Mr. Blues? Mr. Ellinger? Mr. Farmer? Yes on all. No on number 32. I'm sorry? Yes on all. No on number 32. No 32. I will reflect that vote. Mr. Ford? Yes on all. No on number 32. I will reflect that vote. And Ms. Henson? Okay. Okay. There are a couple of corrections that are requested. Council Member Ellinger and Council Member Stanton. Yes, I should have said no on 32. Thank you. Yes and the rest. Okay. And Mayor, same for me. I should have said no on 32 and yes and the rest. I just couldn't flip back quick enough. All right, Council Member Lawless. Yes and no on 32. Okay. Any more? on 32, and then Ms. Henson is absent. Okay. That's Sleaze 1-2. There were five no votes on number 32. Let me make sure that I got that correct. So that's still Reflex Passage. Reflects passage of the ordinances, including 32? Okay. Yes, because that's eight votes. All right. What's the vote? Seven to? Oh, it is. I'm sorry. I can't count. So it does not, 32 does not pass. I'll have to, I'll reflect that and then. Wait a minute. What was the? The vote was 7 to 5 for resolution number 32, which means that it does not pass. It requires eight votes to pass. All right. Okay. And it will be denoted in the minutes. All right. Ready for first reading? Go right ahead. One second. Number 34, for first reading, a resolution accepting the bid of Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Incorporated in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 73-211-2011, creating and offering for sale a short-term franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County and authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a franchise agreement with Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc., incorporating the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 73-2011. Number 35, a resolution accepting the bid of Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc., in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 73-2011, creating and offering for sale a short-term franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a franchise agreement with Delta Natural Gas Company, Incorporating the Terms and Conditions of Ordinance No. 73-2011. Number 36, and this is different than what you have in your screens in front of you, but it is at the discretion of the council to approve these NDFs. Resolution number 36, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute agreements with North Limestone Neighborhood Association, $1,250. Southern Heights Neighborhood Association, $650. Arbor's Homeowners Association, $500. Casa of Lexington Incorporated, $900. Lexington Powell Incorporated $1,225 Dunbar Advisory Council Incorporated $1,500 Charlotte Court Family Incorporated $600 and Bluegrass Youth for Christ Incorporated $800 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated Mr. Ellinger Number 37 Yeah I'll continue on. Yes, what did I, what was the pause for? I'm sorry. I saw that someone wanted to speak. Okay, sorry. Sorry about that. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a customer services agreement with Windstream and Communications, which is attached here to and incorporated herein by reference, to provide ISDN dial tone service to the Division of Emergency Management 911 at an annual cost not to exceed $6,000, plus any additional long distances charges. Number 38, a resolution accepting the response of Dean Dorton Allen Ford, PLLC, to request for proposal number 21-2011 to perform the auditing of financial statements for an amount not to exceed $124,000 and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute any necessary agreements or documents with Dean Norton Allen Board, PLLC. Number 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a lease agreement with Kentucky World Trade Center, Lexington Incorporated, for rent of space at 101 East Vine Street, also known as Phoenix Building. Number 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response System project through December 31, 2011 at no cost to the urban county government. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the University of Louisville Center for Hazards Research for Consulting Services for update of the Hazard Mitigation Plan at a cost not to exceed $107,701 in Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds. Number 42, a resolution ratifying the permanent sworn appointment of Craig Ben's Administrative Officer Grade 118E in the Division of Youth Services if it is effective June 28, 2011. Number 43, a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee on behalf of the Lexington-Fayton County Government to execute and submit the letter of intent, application, and any other necessary documents to the Kentucky Arts Council requesting certification of the Town Branch Cultural District and to provide any additional information requested in connection with this certification, and if so, designated, creating the Cultural District and establishing the the necessary steering committee is responsible for the administering, planning, developing, and implementing and operating the cultural district, which shall be comprised of the directors or chief executive officers of the following entities, LexArts, the Lexington Fayette-Irban County Government, Downtown Lexington Corporation, Commerce Lexington, Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau, Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, Lexington Farmers Market, Lexington Center, Opera House, and the 1st District Council member, the 2nd District Council member, and the 3rd District Council member. Number 44, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with County Public Schools for operation of the Lexington Day Treatment Program at no cost to the Urban County Government. Number 45, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept the donation of a $25 gift card from Walmart, a $25 Visa card from Metro Employees Credit Union, a computer, printer, monitor, and wireless router from AT&T Foundation and Kentucky Connect, and a $10 Kroger gift card and a $40 gift bag, items from O'Melia Thornton for the Hope 6 Grant Resource Fair. Number 46, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an engineering services agreement with Tetra Tech Incorporated to provide annual program management services for consent decree implementation and MS4 permit compliance at a cost not to exceed $816,000. Number 47, a resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Pink Pigeon Parkway in Plotted Place. That's not funny. Number 48, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a FY2012 purchase of service agreement with Lexington Children's Museum, Incorporated, doing business as Explorium of Lexington to provide education and cultural experience for children and their caregivers at a cost not to exceed $169,047. Thank you, Madam Clerk. You're going to have to put that one in your record book. Five Ps there in a row. That's pretty good. Okay. I don't think, unless I'm mistaken, I haven't been told that there were any walk-ons. No? Okay. Council Member Ellinger? Thank you, Mayor. At the request of the administration to expedite the government's business while we go on summer recess, I move that we suspend the rules and get a second read to all 34 through 48. So moved. Motion for a second read on 34 through 48 by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Stennett. Is there any discussion on the suspension motion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, can you give us a second read then? Council Member Stennett, did you have something else? That's what you're going to do? Okay, thank you, sir. Number 34 for second reading. A resolution accepting the bid of Columbia Gas of Kentucky, incorporated in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 73-2011, creating and offering for sale a short-term franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a franchise agreement with Columbia Gas of Kentucky, incorporating the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 73-2011. Number 35, a resolution accepting the bid of Delta Natural Gas Company, incorporated in accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No. 73-2011, creating and offering for sale a short-term franchise for the operation of a non-exclusive gas distribution system in Fayette County, and authorizing the Meritor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute a franchise agreement with Delta Natural Gas Company, incorporating the terms and conditions of Ordinance No. 73-2011. Number 36, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Irvin County Government to execute agreements with North Limestone Neighborhood Association, $1,250. Southern Heights Neighborhood Association, $650. Arbor's Homeowners Association, $500. Casa of Lexington Incorporated, $900. Lexington Pal Incorporated, $1,225. Dunbar Advisory Council Incorporated, $1,500. Charlotte Court Family Incorporated, $600. and Bluegrass Youth for Christ, Inc., $800 for the Office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sums stated. Number 37, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a customer services agreement with Windstream Communications, which is attached here to and incorporated herein by reference, to provide ISDN dial tone service to the Division of Emergency Management 911 at an annual cost not to exceed $6,000 plus any additional long-distance charges. 38, a resolution accepting the response of Dean Dorton Allen Ford, PLLC, to request for proposal number 21-2011 to perform the auditing of financial statements for an amount not to exceed $124,000 and authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute in the necessary agreement or documents with Dean Dorton Allen Ford, PLLC. 39, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute a lease agreement with Kentucky World Trade Center, Lexington Incorporated, for rent of space at 101 East Vine Street, also known as Phoenix Building. 40, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security for extension of the Metropolitan Medical Response System project through December 31, 2011 at no cost to the urban county government. Number 41, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an agreement with the University of Louisville Center for Hazards Research for Consulting Services for update of the hazard mitigation plan at a cost not to exceed $107,701 in hazard mitigation grant program funds. 42, a resolution ratifying the permanence warrant appointment of Craig Benz, Administrative Officer, Grade 118E, in the Division of Youth Services, effective June 28, 2011. Item 1143. which shall be comprised of the directors or chief executive officers of the following entities. LexArts, the Lexington-Fate Urban County Government, Downtown Lexington Corporation, Commerce Lexington, Lexington Convention and Visitors Bureau, Bluegrass Trust for Historic Preservation, Lexington Farmers Market, Lexington Center, Opera House, and the 1st District Council Member, the 2nd District Council Member, and the 3rd District Council Member. 44. A resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a memorandum of agreement with Bayek County Public Schools for operation of the Lexington Day Treatment Program at no cost to the urban county government. Forty-five, a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to accept the donation of a $25 gift card from Walmart, a $25 Visa card from Metro Employees Credit Union, a computer, printer, monitor, and wireless router from AT&T Foundation and Kentucky Connect, and a $10 Kroger gift card and a $40 gift bag, items from O'Melia Thornton for the Hope VI Grant Resource Fair. 46, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an Engineering Services Agreement with Tetra Tech Incorporated to provide annual program management services for consent decree implementation and MS4 permit compliance at a cost not to exceed $816,000. Number 47, a resolution authorizing and direct the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinance Section 18-86 to install multi-way stop controls at Pink Pigeon Parkway and Plotted Place 48, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Irvine County Government to execute a FY 2012 purchase of service agreement with Lexington Children's Museum, Inc., doing business as Explorium of Lexington to provide education and cultural experience for children and their caregivers at a cost not to exceed $169,047. Mr. Stennett, are you up? Have you keyed in for? Okay, I'm showing you. All right. Okay. Is there a motion to? We need a motion to approve. Motion approved by Council Member Ellinger, seconded by Council Member Myers. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please? Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. K. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Yes. Mr. Lane. Yes. Ms. Lawless. Yes. Mr. Martin. Yes. Mr. McCord. Yes. Mr. Myers. Yes. Mr. Stenet. Yes. Mr. Beard. Aye. Mr. Blues. Yes. Mr. Ellinger. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Yes. Mr. Farmer. Mr. Ford. Yes. And Ms. Henson is back. Yes. Yes. All right. Everybody get to vote? Wait a minute. I don't think everybody's voted, have they? I'll fix it. I'll fix it. It's there. One, two, three. I've got it on there. If you don't record it electronically while I'm calling your name, I don't technically fix it on here, but I fixed it, so it's okay. There are 13 present, 13 Council members. Have you got 13 votes up? Yes, sir. Okay, all right. Good to go. All right, vote reflects passage. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to make a motion to reconsider number 32. Motion to recon... Is it... 32... Wait a minute. Second reading of the resolutions of item 32. Thank you, Dr. Bruce. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bruce. There's a motion to reconsider. There's a motion by Council Member Lawless, second by Council Member Henson. Is there a discussion? Is this for discussion, Mr. Farmer? All right, yes, sir. So she is able to second because she was absent during the vote? Yes, I would think. Your rule on reconsideration says that the motion to reconsider is made only by one who voted in the prevailing side, and my understanding is that Council Member Lawless voted no. Anyone can second the motion to reconsider is what your rules say. Okay, is that clear? Is there any more discussion? Council Member Myers? You signed on for discussion. Council Member Myers I guess there was a conversation we had another day, but in the last meeting we were given bad advice then because we had a motion to reconsider and the Vice Mayor said that the second had to come from the prevailing side and we ended up not taking that vote because we got bad advice. So I just want to put that on the record, and we'll deal with that later. Okay. Glad you're here tonight. I can only read you what your rule says. I'm glad you're here tonight. Thank you, Mr. Horn. All right. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Ford? Thank you, Mayor. We're a body of 15. We have 13 present now. We had 12 at the time of the vote. In fairness, it seems that if we're going to reconsider, which I don't support, it seems that we would reconsider when we have all 15 here, if we chose to do so. At the time of the vote, those that were present cast the vote. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Council Member Henson. I wanted to explain my absence from this vote because I was stuck in this elevator out here and I was ringing the alarm. Believe it or not, it did take me back to the first floor. And you'd already made, by that time, I had broken out into a pretty good sweat. But that was my reason. Not an intentional demonstration of the severity of our maintenance issues. Would you please do something? Yes, sure. All righty. Any further discussion? All right. We're ready to take a vote. And just to make sure what we're voting on, we have voted to reconsider. We're voting to reconsider now. All right. So all in favor of the motion to reconsider, item 32, please indicate voting electronically yes. Is that okay? Have you got it where we can engage it? All right. All right. The vote to reconsider passes. All right. So I'll take the. Now, procedurally, take us through it, Mr. Horne, please. You can debate again the resolution and take a vote on the resolution. All right. Do we need to read it again? I don't think it's necessary. All right. Then as chair, I'll open the floor for discussion on item 32. All right. You want to, Madam Clerk, could you clear the vote? That way I can see the monitor. Okay. Reset vote. Can you help me with that, Susan? I'm working on that. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Hold on just a minute. I'm just elaborating quickly or attempting to. Well, I guess we could go ahead. If you can't clear it, we can just go ahead. Hold up your hand if you wish to comment on the item 32. Then all we're going to do is revote. All right. I'll ask for the vote. All in favor? Thank you, Mr. Stenet. Madam Clerk, can you call the roll? Okay. Well, yeah, that's not going to work either, is it? I've got it cleared off. Let's just hold until we get it reset. Sorry about that. That's my defunctory, so. Yeah, we got it back now. Susan. It would be advisable to make another motion to approve. Motion to approve, Mayor. The motion, okay, Council Member McCord, the motion to approve by Council Member McCord, a second by Council Member Myers. Okay. Now the roll call. Okay, does everybody understand what we're voting? Council Member Farmer. I assume there's still room for commentary. Chair, we'll yield to commentary. Yes, sir. In the June 29th memorandum that accompanies this legislation, there's several suppositions in my estimation. I think the most interesting is on the second page where it's quoting from the charter. It says, The powers of the council shall include the power to levy taxes subject to the limitations of this charter and the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. In our last discussion about this issue, I think it was made very clear that the laws of the Commonwealth of Kentucky will supersede us on this issue. Further, it says, former Mayor Newberry and Jim Gray both support an up or down vote for the election of the council to ratify or reject negotiated collective bargaining agreements. I'm just wondering, is that true? Because I don't understand what the council gains from voting up or down on this agreement after it has been negotiated and is done. What does the council get from then voting up or down on it, having not been at the table, having not been subject to the commentary and the conversation, what do we gain? What deliverable do the taxpayers get for us going yay, nay, or no way, or to follow the last provision in the event the Urban County Council fails to act within the above deadline, the mayor be and hereby is authorized to execute the agreement on behalf of the government. So we could yield and do nothing. I'm still back at square one. What do we get? Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. Just as a sort of a comment, since I did write that memo, I think the first point is that there is a state statute regarding the collective bargaining agreement and the interpretation of that statute. We've had opinions from our own law department, from the Attorney General, from attorneys representing the unions. So we've had a whole variety of opinions, but the opinions are strictly opinions, and really the only way that you could determine exactly what the statute means is if there were a judicial review of the matter. So by us taking this vote, to assert our authority under the Charter, if there is some area that needs to be clarified, it would have to be done in the court. And so that would be my answer to that. With regard to comments from Mayor Newberry, here in the council he said that he did support the council reviewing and approving the agreements. And Mayor Gray can speak for himself. He's sitting here and can comment on that. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I'll speak to the question after we get through these comments. Go ahead, Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mayor. I've seen in the press that the mayor has agreed to support this. I'll let him speak for himself, obviously. But I think as a policy matter, regardless of who's sitting in the chair as mayor, I think it's wrong to delegate the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to a single individual. I mean, we are here as caretakers of the public funds. We approve dozens upon dozens of little expenditures and grants and accepting $500 here. That's all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic compared to hundreds of millions of dollars that we don't seem to want. What's at stake here is nothing short of the continued solvency of the city of Lexington. And I know that sounds dramatic, but we're talking about there's a nationwide epidemic of political patronage that has caused the rise of public employee pensions. It's easy to give benefits to employees to get their support from campaigns, either through campaign endorsements or people who go door to door or get campaign contributions. This is a national epidemic. And we must draw the line and exercise our fiduciary responsibility as council members to safeguard the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. We can't possibly think that we're doing our job by delegating these massive amounts of money to a single individual. Fortunately, we have a seasoned, world-class executive as our mayor, but we might not always have that. The next mayor may be one of us, and that might be much more disturbing. And so I think we have to really assert ourselves into this process so that we do what we do. We supervise, and we are checks and balances on this process. And it should be that something comes out like the overtime system that was in the current contract, which Richard Maloney came up and described to us, which is nothing short of a Ponzi scheme, where one hour turns into 18 hours of overtime. We have an obligation to stop these types of practices and to be 15 additional eyes on these contracts and to be a voice of reason under overwhelming political pressure on occasion to say no. And in that circumstance, it's the same thing as the unions have. If they go to their membership and they think it's a bad deal for their membership, they get to say no. And that's what we get to do on behalf of the citizens. And so I just, I beg my fellow council members, this is so significant, it is going to substantially affect our finances, and this is something that we need to do. This deserves our attention more than the bucket of dirt we have to vote on. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Looking at the resolution, I have to agree with some of the comments that Council Member Farmer to my left made. And I have a question of Mr. Lane. I appreciate his intent for oversight, but the resolution that's presented gives us some options. It gives us an option to vote up or down. It even gives us the option not to act. And in the case that we fail to act within three meetings, the mayor can execute. We didn't need the resolution to say that because State Statute 67A already says that the mayor can execute the contract. What this resolution does not provide for, it does not allow the council to prevent the mayor from executing the contract, irregardless if we vote up or down. In my opinion, and I may be wrong, we can achieve what we hope to accomplish with oversight of collective bargaining through the budgetary process. That's Council's role in reviewing that. Us voting up or down is us voting up or down. This resolution, in my opinion, does not provide the fiduciary responsibility that Council Member Martin and Council Member Lane speaks of. So to that end, I'll be voting no. In closing comments, what I will say is that I agree with Council Member Martin that this is a very important issue. But if this vote and this discussion and the way it has gone back and forth for the last two or three meetings is indicative of how the process will be if we take an up or down vote on a collective bargaining, I definitely will not be supportive of that. So I'll be voting no against this motion. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. You know, we've debated this issue since 2008. And when I got on council in 2005, it was very clear that the mayor has the power, according to the state statute, to sign the agreement irregardless of what action this council takes. Therefore, taking action on this resolution, whether it passes tonight or doesn't, has no effect on the action in which the mayor can take, which, again, is given to him or her by the state statute. I appreciate what Council Member Martin is trying to say, but I think the public needs to understand something. We're not delegating anything. we pass a budget each year. In this year's budget, we agreed that there's $5.6 million of savings from the collective bargaining contract that has been budgeted. That's how you can control the cost. This mayor has also said publicly that he'll engage us in the process if we want to be engaged. So in no way I want the public to leave this tonight thinking we are ducking any type of responsibility, because that's absurd. And for any council member to sit here and say that, and publicly insinuate any type of political issue on this motion just shows you how desperate the attempt is in order to get it passed, a motion that is very split right down the middle for this council. And any motion, those of us that have been around a while know, is not a good motion, passing 8 to 7 like it will tonight. So there's a lot that still has to be done on this issue. This is not the end of it, nor is it the beginning of it. There's a lot of work that we have to all come together with the mayor, administration, and the unions to solve over the next six months. And the comments we're making tonight will have a great impact on those issues. So we need to be very careful on how we tread going forward because this resolution, again, pass or fail tonight, will nowhere near be the end of this issue. Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor, and I'm going to try to stay brief here. The reason why I think this is a good motion to pass is because of the questions that I asked for Mr. Sweeney last week. And that is, if a union has the opportunity to go back, he said, over two meetings and go line by line to the contract and understand what's in the contract and then they have an opportunity to vote it up or down, I asked him if he thought it was fair that the council, representing all the people that we represent, be able to do the same thing. That's why I think we should do this, because even if we agree that the state statute provides for the mayor to be able to sign the contract, regardless of whether or not we voted up or down, what this does for me as a council member, an elected representative, is the opportunity to hear before the contract is signed what's in the contract, so I can go back to my constituents and talk to them about what's in the contract, so that they understand what happens before we vote. Now, if we vote it down and the mayor still signs it, the value that I see in that process is we understand what's in the agreement, and we were able to give our feedback to the mayor. Those who have made the argument that because that's true, this isn't worth voting for, I would say to them that if you follow your logic, there's still no reason to vote against this motion. Secondly, I would say that if we look at motions that are passed 7-8 and those kinds of things and we say they're not valid, then we need to change our rules so that everything must pass with a supermajority. I also would say that Supreme Court of 9 passes most of this motion 5-4. So I'm going to support this motion, and I hope everybody else does too. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to have to endorse exactly what Council Member Meyer said. It is incumbent upon us to be able to communicate to our constituents where we stand on these points. and if for nothing other than the communications part of being able to talk to our constituents with some element of knowledge about what the collective bargaining process has been and what we have to live with, because they do not understand. the constituents as a whole. And I'm not giving opinion with a dark brush, but at the same time, it's a complex situation, and I don't think the constituents as a whole totally understand what we have to deal with with collective bargaining. So it's an educational process, and that's why I approve and will vote for this. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Farmer, you've spoken on the issue already, and Council Member Lane, but I don't think Council Member Lawless has, so we'll let her go and then come back to you guys, okay? Thank you so much. I have just a quick question, and that is, if the council votes this was brought back down, If we vote against it, does the mayor have the right, in your eyes, and in your eyes, Council Member Martin, to sign the contract? Actually, I think that was – let me say something. Commissioner Graham is not here this week or tonight. Were you here, Keith, with her commentary the other day? Who does? Oh, yes, sir, Mr. Gardner. I think it would probably be whatever we had for Ed. Right. Let's see if you get the question. I did not. I think the question from Council Member Lawless was related. If we were to pass this ordinance and the council voted against the agreement, the collective bargaining agreement that the administration had reached, would the mayor still have the right to sign that contract? Under the wording of the statute, you could make a pretty good argument that he does have that authority. However, there is authority or there is room for argument on the other side in the sense that the government divides its powers and there are issues if you want to get deep enough into whether or not the state, even if they pass that kind of statute, can undo that separation without getting into all that. I think the simple answer is, yes, he could sign it, and I think that there's a good argument that that would be valid. That's not to say there's not other arguments that if the council did go through this process, that someone could come in and attack that vote. And I'm not trying to not answer your question, but that's the best answer I can give you. There's no court in Kentucky that's ever litigated this issue, and it's been going on in Louisville for years, exactly the same thing. My understanding is maybe only once or twice has the legislative body ever voted it down. In those cases, my understanding is that it went back to borrowing. Had the mayor over there in that situation signed it, we might have a case on point, but we don't right now. So if we pass this, we possibly could be facing two different court cases. One, to see if it meets the state law and the charter. and, two, another court case that would challenge the mayor for signing it anyway? Well, they obviously both couldn't happen at the same time. But in reality, I don't think passing this and following this would lead. Only in the situation where the mayor signed it against that vote would there be any problem. Because even without this, if the mayor wanted to come in here, present the contract, Explain every detail to you all and ask what you all thought. He can do that. There's no question he can do that. But if we pass this and then the council votes against it, then there could be litigation. There could be litigation about any of it. There could be litigation about him going on and signing it with our no vote. I can't say there couldn't be. That's certainly possible. which could be quite expensive. And so thank you. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity for us to have these kind of discussions. We had a really great meeting last Thursday. It seems so soon to be back again. I appreciate that Council Member Lane brought this forward. But more than that, I appreciate the work that Councilmember Martin has done and continues to do to demonstrate the pension Armageddon that we are facing. I mean, that's the policy issue we really, really need to be working on. Unfortunately, that's not really the subject of this legislation. And really, the only thing I think we will gain from this is another opportunity to go to court. I don't believe it will bring us anything else other than another opportunity to litigate something that is well enough left alone. We need to work on our relationship and our opportunity to save money and make decisions for the financial future of Lexington and its pensioners, if you will, responsibly so that we can take care of all the needs of the city at the same time. but I'm still opposed to this legislation because I don't think it gets to the root of the true matter. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane. I just had a closing thought since we're, I guess, wrapping up this discussion, but resolution number 45 tonight on our docket, I'm just going to read a couple of parts. I would say a resolution authorizing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation of a $25 gift card from Walmart, a $25 Visa card from the Metro Employees Credit Union, and a computer printer, monitor, and wireless router from AT&T Foundation and Kentucky Connect, and a $10 Kroger gift card and $40 gift bag of items from the Hope VI Grant Resource Fair. Now, I merely am bringing this up, is that if we can bring something this small for a $25 gift card before the council to be put on our docket, to be read twice, to be voted on and be put on the record, but we cannot bring a $100 million collective bargaining agreement for our council for review and discussion, you know, I feel that we're in a bad situation. And I just encourage every council member, I think this is one of the most important votes that our council ever make to support this motion. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for this opportunity to speak, but twice. I kind of hinted at this question last on the last time we met. Why is this presented as a form of a resolution as opposed to an ordinance? And in my opinion, attorney, an ordinance carries more weight than a resolution. And we're talking resolution versus state statute. It seems as if we really wanted to make a statement, we would have legislated an ordinance to address this issue. If you can briefly speak to that. Well, I'm not sure that discussion ever came up in the law department. The original draft was done under the previous administration. It was done as a resolution. While I was aware of that, I was not the principal involved in that. I am not, and I don't know if Keith is, prepared to discuss the distinction of when it should be a resolution and when it should be an ordinance. This clearly could be, I believe, an ordinance, and it could be amended right now to be changed into being an ordinance as far as that goes. But I don't necessarily agree with you that it would carry any more weight one way or the other. It's still going to be an act by a local legislative body going up against the state. So I don't know that it's a distinction, but it may not make a difference. Thank you. Thank you, Ed. I appreciate that. One other thing that I wanted to say is I would recommend the $100 million question. We talk about how big an impact this has. This is a policy issue and a budget issue. We cannot simplify it that we are doing everything we're supposed to do as a legislative body by voting up and down on one vote on a contract that's been negotiated in our absence. The last thing I'll say is something that Mr. Myers brought up, and I see he's set to speak again. He says that the union, the negotiators for the sworn employees go back to the union and they get to vote up or down. We're not a union. We're a council that works with the mayor. And one thing that we can do that the union cannot do is adopt a budget. That in the context of collective bargaining, working with the mayor will address the public safety needs of this community. So I don't think that's a fair similarity. And again, this resolution, voting up or down to get over, it does not supersede or trump what the state statute says. Those are my final comments, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Myers, you want to speak again? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much. I guess I was going to start by saying if we were to ask the union employees if they were okay with allowing the nine people who represent them to go negotiate the contract, and once they reach an agreement with the administration, those nine people just went ahead and ratified it. They never got to see what was in it. I don't know what their answer would be. That's exactly what you're suggesting that the council should do. We are not just a council. where elected representatives elected to represent somebody. If this passes, it provides the administration the opportunity to come back and educate the council as to what's in that contract so that we, or at least I'll speak for myself, I can go back to my constituents who put me here and explain to them what we're going to be passing, whether or not we get a chance to vote it up or down, whether or not that vote sticks and the mayor can't override our vote. But what it does is provide me an opportunity to understand what it is that's in that budget or in that contract, and I can articulate that to my constituents. The last thing I would say is that when you talk about the budget is what we pass, actually there's a couple things we do, and one of them is set policy as well as determine budgets. If you look at this year alone, the budget will not handle this, because I think if you realize that collective bargaining for police just started, I believe, this week, we've already passed the budget. We have no clue how that contract will affect the budget because the budget's already passed. So when you make the statement that the budget is the process in which we can manage this, it's not true when you pass the budget before you even begin collective bargaining. So I encourage all our council members, again, to vote for this so that they can understand what's in here, they can articulate that to the people who sent them here, and then we can move forward. Thank you. Thank you. And earlier, Council Member Lane asked for my thoughts on this. I'm happy to share them again. First off, I'll confess that I wish you guys, I wish council members didn't look at any of the contracts, that y'all maybe, you know, just let them all go. But I said that tongue-in-cheek, okay? That was kind of to generate some level of levity, okay? We know that, but we know that that is a big part of the way it works. It may not work that way in other cities. I don't know. But it works that way in Lexington. Council Member Lane just illustrated, you know, at a very granular level, this council examines the financial issues, contracts, purchases of the city at a very granular level. So I've learned that you really can't escape a vigorous debate, can't hide from it, it won't happen. And there is a lot of merit to sunlight. Everybody doesn't like it, I understand that, but there's just a lot of merit to it. And somehow or another, we have to navigate through those turbulent issues. Now, from my point of view, I said it last week, as the mayor, and I speak for those in the administration, we will negotiate responsibly. We'll try to drive a good and responsible bargain. But I also know that having accountability has a lot of merit and that that's what, like it or not, sometimes I may not like it, but that's what the council represents. I also think that it gives us the chance to routinely and regularly share with our employees, with the unions, the issues as we see them, responsibly, honestly, fairly. These are very tough times. You know, it's almost cliche now. We've said it for so long. But when those job numbers came out last Friday, 18,000 new jobs created across this country, those numbers are real, and they affect us right here in Lexington, and they affect our revenues. They affect our cost basis, and it's our cost basis that we're talking about here. So one way or another, whether I said it, whether it's voted, whether the council supports it or not, I think it is the rational and reasonable and responsible thing to do, frankly speaking, especially considering the significance of this issue, by contrast with all the other issues that the council engages and undertakes. But regardless of what the council does, you know, we must engage the council on this issue. So thank you very much. Are you all ready to vote? All right. Council Member Lawless. So to clarify, and as it was pointed out by somebody that we had a brilliant, engaging mayor now. Oh, the world class. World class, I believe it was. And that's going to last all of a night. And this issue, and you have committed to keeping us informed, rather without needing a vote, but you have committed to keeping us informed and engaging us in the process doesn't mean voting on it. so this won't come up again for three more years. So while you have been described as a world-class, international, honest, open mayor here, it won't come up again until you're not the mayor anymore, or you may be the mayor for four more years after that. So why now? Okay. Are we ready to vote? And I just want to say I hear that a lot. Okay. Call the question. All right. Second. Council Member Stendid has called the question, seconded by Council Member Myers. All in favor of calling the question, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. We're ready to call the question then. All in. This is a roll call vote. All right, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Kay? Yes. Mr. Lane? Yes. Ms. Lawless? No. Mr. Martin? Yes. Mr. McCord? Yes. Mr. Myers? Yes. Mr. Stennett? No, ma'am. Mr. Beard? Aye. Excuse me. Mr. Blues? Yes. Mr. Ellinger? No. Mr. Farmer. No, ma'am. Mr. Ford. No. And Ms. Henson. Yes. The vote reflects passage. All right. There's a motion on the communications necessary. We kind of got out of sync. Where are we? The communications from the mayor, item nine. Oh, yes, yes, yes. Thanks, sir. There's no action needed on communications from the mayor. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Our next item is item 11. Are there any announcements by any council members? No announcements? Mayor, we do need a motion on number nine. Item number nine. It's the appointments of the committees and boards. Oh, oh, oh. All right. Council Member Ellinger made a motion. Is there a second? Council Member Stennett, did you make a second? You did? Okay, good. Second by Council Member Stenet. Oh, okay. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, then all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. Motion carries. Now announcements. Are there any announcements? No announcements. All right. There is an announcement. Council Member Lawless. I was afraid I'd lost my paper again. The South Hill Neighborhood Association is meeting, but it's probably almost over now. Just want to remind people that we are going on break. This is our last council meeting until about mid-August. so I know that maybe you have reruns on your TiVo so you can look at old meetings and we'll be missing the excitement but I do want to remind people that you can go to lexington.com downtown Lexington Corporation has a website The farmer's market will continue to be open. Please go and support that. Southland Jamboree on Tuesday nights at 7 p.m. will continue. And there's some grants coming up that you all might be interested in. The ECHO Art Grant is due soon. Some other sustainability grants or water quality incentive grants, I think, is what they're called for both neighborhoods and businesses. Please support your local businesses. And I'll be out of town part of the time. but we'll try to get to you as soon as possible but I just wanted to remind everybody that we will be off until about mid-August and please keep having fun downtown and around town. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. I have just a few announcements I want to share with the constituents of my district and of Lexington. over the break. The first one is the Charles Young Center Redevelopment Task Force. Next meeting is Wednesday, August the 3rd at 530. That meeting will be held at Shiloh Baptist Church, 237 East 5th Street. I want to thank their pastor, Reverend Joseph Owens, and their congregation for hosting our meeting there. The next event is the Commission on Youth Development and Public Safety. We had our first meeting on June 28th. The next meeting of the entire Our commission is Tuesday, August 2nd, beginning at 530. The commission meeting will be held at the Fayette County Extension Office at 1140 Red Mile Place. This coming Sunday, Douglas Park has been a service to our community for nearly 100 years, and we have an opportunity to showcase that again this weekend with the annual Super Sunday celebration and the Dirt Bowl basketball tournament. That's going to be Sunday, July 17th at Douglas Park on Georgetown Street. I want to give a shout out to the Neighborhood Association, Georgetown Street Area Neighborhood Association, as well as Parks and Rec for all they do for that event. The last two events, and I'm wrapping up, Lexington has an opportunity to be a destination this summer. And the convention center is going to host two special events. They do a great job down there, but two events I want to highlight. The 9th Annual Bluegrass Minority Business Expo will be held July 27th and 28th. And the luncheon speaker for that day is basketball great Oscar Robinson. He's before my time, but I understand he was a pretty good basketball player in his day. And we appreciate him coming. Last but not least, Lexington will be hosting a national conference starting this weekend, the 35th Annual Noble Training Conference. And Noble is a national organization of black law enforcement executives. That conference will be held here from July 16th through the 20th. And so when I speak of a national conference from California to Maine, from Washington to Florida, we're going to have about 1,600 or so executives come. We hope they have a very great time. Those are our announcements, and I look forward to seeing everybody at the neighborhood back-to-school rallies in August 6th. It's almost that time. The parents say yay, the kids say nay. It's almost that time. Everybody have a great day. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Anybody else? Councilman Lawless. I'm sorry, I almost forgot. I wanted to remind everybody out there, the people that may not have seen it in the paper, that the Webs and... Jeannie Gang. Jeannie Gang from Studio Gang, the architect the Webs have contracted with, will be at the Kentucky Theater, actually in the state theater part of it, but at the Kentucky Theater Thursday at 4 o'clock. It is open to the public, and she's awesome, and I hope that as many of you can will come and be there. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there a public comment? Mr. Warfield? Lawrence? Yeah. Oh, he's already spoken. Okay. Someone else was speaking. Yes, sir. Come right. We've been in discussion, at least a little bit. I'm sorry, I didn't have you signed up. Tony, can you identify yourself? Oh, I apologize. I don't know the formalities. That's all right. My name is Tony Broussette. I'm from Rosemont Garden. I live at 524 Rosemont Garden. I'm in District 10. And I'm coming before the council and the mayor to ask to please consider providing yard waste pickup for the entire city. not just for the people who vote on a street level to be on the city pickup, but the whole city. This is a financial and this is an environmental win-win for all of us. I've lived on Rosemont Garden for 12 years. In the time that I've lived there, it has come to vote, and this is normally the way that people would get on city pickup and get yard waste collected. It's come to vote three times, and every time it's been voted down. You need 51% of the people on your street in order to vote to go on city pickup in order to be on city pickup. I understand that. I myself have requested the packet to do that before, and it's always been voted down. I'm told that it's because although there are 144 houses on Rosemont Garden, that 50 of them are rentals. The closer you get to the university, the more rentals you have. I have every single one of them that's a rental mapped out here. These are people who do not live here. Some of them live in Palomar. Some of them live in Harland. Some of them live in Nicholasville. People who don't even live in Lexington get to vote as to whether or not I have yard waste collection. I'm an environmentalist who uses an electric lawnmower, drives a hybrid automobile, and recycles and composts everything that I can. It appalls me that I have to put yard waste into the city dump. That's my only option. Every third waste provider, everybody who can provide waste for me, M&M Sanitation, B&W, everybody, they treat yard waste as garbage. It goes directly into the garbage. It goes directly to the dump. I don't think that's a viable option. I, for 12 years now, have taken that yard waste and driven it around to Mitchell Drive right behind me, which is I can throw my yard waste into the neighbor's yard. They are on city pickup. I'm not. And I'll drive down the street. I buy my own yard waste bags. And every Sunday I drive around and I look for half full Lennies so I can put my yard waste into somebody else's yard waste bin. I don't leave them on people's curbs. That would be littering. Sometimes the bags dilapidate if it rains, and I don't want somebody else to be left with my mess. So I wander down the street looking in and find places to dump these. I have some of the nicest little old ladies who live on Mitchell Drive who have run down their street yelling, You son of a, get that out! You take that out! You don't live here! And all I'm trying to do is save the city money and be an environmentalist. This last Sunday I got an argument with a gentleman at 575 Mitchell, who I find out is a renter, and I apologize, I'm running out of time, who I find out is a renter, who says that he's an environmentalist and he's a vegetarian and he composts. I said, well, you've got your yard waste out here. Obviously, you don't compost everything. Why do you put stuff in there? He's like, well, because that's stuff we're allergic to. I said, well, I just looked in it. You've got 17 sticks in there. It's mostly empty. It's not environmental to make the city stop. Let me put my yard waste in there. Well, it makes me uncomfortable to let you do that. I have neighbors who are going to get in fistfights with me because for 12 years now, I've been bringing the stuff around the corner and putting it in. And I'm not looking for any metals for that. I like the idea. One option we have is to annex the streets that aren't on city pickup. Rosemont Garden is right over by the Good Foods Co-op. I'm there to the downtown area. When I moved in, I didn't know. Yeah. I didn't get your last name. I'm sorry. Bruce 8, B as in boy, R-U-S-A-T-E. Okay. It's okay if I just say Tony then. I sometimes have to say that I have the unpopular duty and role of being the timekeeper, and we do have a three-minute rule. What I do want to say is thank you for coming tonight through the public comment section of our council members, of our council meetings. Okay. Issues are illuminated and elevated, and that's what you've done for us. And some of us will be talking with you after the council meeting, I am sure. Good, because by my calculations, this will save the city $250,000 a year. We listen to those kind of numbers. That's right. Thanks very much. Thank you, sir. All right. Is there anything else to come before the council? All right. There is a motion for adjournment by Mr. Stinnett, second by Council Member Ellinger. All in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. We are adjourned.