# General Government Committee - September 13, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 13, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2169 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2169?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-09-13 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 17,437 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government Committee met on September 13, 2011, at 10:00 A.M., with Ed Lane presiding. The committee addressed 14 agenda items during the session, the majority of which were informational presentations. One motion was brought to a vote, and the committee heard four public comments. The agenda covered a broad range of facilities and parks-related topics, including annual maintenance reports, capital improvements, real estate management software, and usage policies for facilities. The committee also received presentations on a fleet vegetable oil pilot program, parks acquisition and expansion funds, an aquatic master plan, golf course management, and parks conservancy matters. Additionally, the committee considered a resolution to amend Section 3.101 of the Council Rules. One item listed as "Items in Committee" was withdrawn from consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 13, 2011: * Ed Lane * Jay McChord * Linda Gorton * Steve Kay * Chris Ford * Diane Lawless * K. C. Crosbie * George Myers * Doug Martin * Peggy Henson * Jamshid Baradaran * Jerry Hancock * Glenda George No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to Remove Citizen's Advocate Position Review from Agenda** A motion was made to remove the review of the citizen's advocate position from the General Government Committee agenda. The motion was made by K. C. Crosbie and seconded by George Myers. [timestamp: 1:48:26] The motion passed by voice vote. All members present voted in favor, with no votes against and no abstentions. The following members voted for the motion: Ed Lane, Jay McChord, Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Diane Lawless, K. C. Crosbie, George Myers, Doug Martin, and Peggy Henson. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several financial allocations and capital projects: **Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements** The FY 2013 budget included an appropriation of $27,000,000 for deferred maintenance projects and capital improvements. **Real Estate Management Software** Funding was discussed for the acquisition and implementation of real estate management software, with an estimated 18-month timeline for completion. The specific cost was not specified in the meeting materials. **Parks Acquisition and Maintenance** The Parks Acquisition Fund received $1.3 million in grant funding designated for parks acquisition and capital maintenance. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council on various facility and parks-related matters. **Doug Martin** [timestamp: 0:31:12] raised concerns about facility occupancy and management, expressing worry about the lack of control over non-LFUCG tenants. He requested stronger legislative authority to manage city real estate assets effectively. **George Myers** [timestamp: 0:46:20] spoke on facility usage policy and rent for partner agencies. He advocated for requiring all tenants to pay rent, with the council retaining the ability to grant funds to offset costs. Myers emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in how city resources are allocated. **Jerry Hancock** [timestamp: 0:58:26] addressed parks maintenance and capital improvements. He highlighted the need for increased funding to address deferred maintenance in parks and stressed the importance of maintaining parks as a reflection of community health. **Steve Kay** [timestamp: 1:05:05] discussed public-private partnerships for parks. He suggested that parks should receive the same high-profile attention as other public-private initiatives and recommended engaging the mayor to elevate the Parks Conservancy effort. ## Appointments Linda Gorton was appointed to the position of Vice Mayor. ## Contested Items The September 13, 2011 meeting included two significant areas of disagreement among council members. **Facility Usage Policy and Rent for Partner Agencies** Council members engaged in a heated discussion regarding whether all tenants occupying council facilities should be required to pay rent. The debate centered on concerns about transparency and accountability in how the council manages its properties and subsidizes partner agencies. Council members expressed the need for a formal process to evaluate any subsidies provided to tenants, rather than allowing ad hoc arrangements. The disagreement reflected broader concerns about ensuring fair treatment of all organizations using council facilities and maintaining clear financial records of facility usage arrangements. **Council Approval of Contracts and Administrative Actions** The council was divided on a procedural matter regarding whether routine contracts and deeds should be removed from the meeting docket. Some council members opposed removing these items, citing concerns about transparency and public access to information. Others supported streamlining the docket by handling routine administrative actions separately. This split vote reflected differing views on how to balance operational efficiency with the principle of maintaining public visibility into council decisions and contractual commitments. ## Facilities - annual maintenance Director Jamshid Baradaran presented an overview of the city's deferred maintenance needs for municipal facilities [timestamp: 00:01:12]. The presentation highlighted a $27 million deferred maintenance list that requires attention across the city's facility portfolio. **Key Points Presented** Director Baradaran emphasized the importance of establishing long-term funding strategies to address the accumulated maintenance backlog. He also outlined a revised Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) process that is scheduled for implementation by fiscal year 2014. This revised approach is intended to better manage and prioritize facility maintenance projects going forward. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, allowing the governing body to understand the scope and scale of deferred maintenance challenges facing city facilities and the proposed timeline for process improvements. ## Facilities - capital improvements Jamshid Baradaran presented an overview of capital improvement needs for the organization's facilities [timestamp: 00:01:12]. The presentation focused on identifying major repairs and replacements required across the facilities portfolio. Baradaran outlined a phased approach to addressing these capital needs, with projects prioritized based on two key criteria: funding availability and life safety priorities. This framework was designed to ensure that the most critical safety-related improvements would be addressed first, while other projects would be scheduled as resources became available. The presentation was informational in nature, providing the board and attendees with an assessment of the facilities' current condition and the strategic plan for managing necessary improvements over time. No specific debate or concerns were documented as part of this agenda item. The outcome of this item was informational, with no formal action or decision required at this time. ## Facilities - real estate management software [timestamp: 06:42] Jamshid Baradaran presented a proposal for the acquisition of a web-based real estate management system. The presentation outlined a projected implementation timeline of 18 months for the new system. A key component of the proposal involved coordination with the IT group to ensure the system would be compatible with existing infrastructure and technical requirements. The agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal decision or action items recorded as outcomes from this discussion. ## Facilities - usage policy Jamshid Baradaran presented a new facility usage policy and accompanying process map during this agenda item [timestamp: 10:25]. The presentation introduced the GS100 form as a standardized tool for evaluating facility usage requests from partner agencies. The key objectives of the new policy included standardizing the evaluation process across partner agencies and ensuring transparency in subsidy decisions related to facility usage. The process map outlined the procedures that would govern how facility usage requests are reviewed and approved. This was an informational presentation with no formal debate or decision required. The outcome was to inform attendees of the new policy framework and its implementation procedures. ## Fleet - vegetable oil pilot program Jamshid Baradaran presented information on the vegetable oil pilot program for the fleet [timestamp: 1:13:05]. **Key Findings** Baradaran reported that using biodiesel made from French fry oil or soybeans is not legally permissible above 20% concentration due to state regulations. This regulatory limitation constrains the potential scope of the pilot program. **Concerns Raised** Cost efficiency of the vegetable oil pilot program remains uncertain. No clear economic analysis was presented demonstrating the financial viability of implementing this initiative. **Outcome** This was an informational presentation with no decision or action items recorded. ## Parks - acquisition fund Jerry Hancock presented information about the Parks Acquisition Fund [timestamp: 00:51:13]. The fund generates between $200,000 and $400,000 annually. Hancock proposed modifying how the fund is used. Rather than restricting its use solely to land acquisition, he suggested expanding its application to support capital improvements as well. This item was presented as informational in nature, with no formal action taken. ## Parks - annual maintenance Jerry Hancock presented information on the city's parks maintenance needs [timestamp: 0:55:11]. He confirmed that parks face substantial deferred maintenance, with an estimated cost of $27 million. Hancock indicated that this maintenance backlog will be integrated into the broader city-wide maintenance planning process. This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required at this meeting. ## Parks - aquatic master plan Jerry Hancock presented information on the development of a Parks Aquatic Master Plan [timestamp: 1:00:04]. Hancock announced that a comprehensive Parks Aquatic Master Plan is under development and will be presented in December. The plan will incorporate community surveys and financial analysis to inform recommendations regarding aquatic facilities and programming. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action or decision required at this meeting. ## Parks - capital improvements Jerry Hancock presented an update on capital improvements for parks [timestamp: 1:01:06]. **Key Points:** - Capital improvement funding was reduced by $250,000 in FY12 - Future parks capital improvement plans will be integrated into the city-wide capital planning process **Outcome:** This item was presented for informational purposes. ## Parks - conservancy Jerry Hancock reported on efforts to establish a private Parks Conservancy [timestamp: 1:01:38]. The presentation outlined plans to form a steering committee to advance the initiative, with expectations to return with formal recommendations in the fall. This item was presented as informational in nature, providing an update on the conservancy development process rather than requesting a decision or vote at this time. ## Parks - expansion fund Jerry Hancock confirmed the existence of an exaction fee program managed by the Division of Planning. [timestamp: 1:03:21] The discussion was informational in nature, with a presentation on this topic scheduled for February 2012. ## Parks - golf course management Jerry Hancock presented information regarding golf course management [timestamp: 1:03:54]. The presentation was informational in nature. Hancock announced that a Golf Master Plan will be presented to the council in December. The plan will include financial analysis, historical information, and comparisons with peer cities' golf course operations. ## Resolution to amend Section 3.101 of the Council Rules Glenda George presented two draft resolutions aimed at streamlining council operations by removing routine administrative actions from the formal council docket [timestamp: 1:24:26]. **Presentation Overview** The proposed amendments would allow the mayor to execute certain routine administrative actions without requiring formal council approval. Instead of appearing on the official docket, these actions would be reported to the council through the mayor's communication process. **Key Speaker** - Glenda George **Outcome** This item was presented for informational purposes only and did not result in a formal vote or decision at this meeting. ## Items in Committee The committee discussed the status of the citizen's advocate position during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:45:08]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved K. C. Crosbie, George Myers, and Linda Gorton. **Discussion and Action** The committee addressed the citizen's advocate position and its current status. A motion was made to remove this item from the agenda, with the action contingent upon finalization of an updated job description for the position. **Outcome** The agenda item was withdrawn. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the review of the citizen's advocate position from the General Government Committee agenda --- ## Full transcript And we do have a quorum here. I'd like to take a moment to welcome Vice Mayor Linda Gorton, 3rd District Council Member Diane Lawless, and 11th District Council Member Peggy Henson, who are new members of this committee after our reorganization, and Mr. Blues, too. Excuse me, sir. So welcome aboard. Our first presentation this morning is from the Director of Facilities and Fleet Management, Rajabashid, if you're ready to go or ready to have your presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. We were requested to provide an update during the last meeting by CMK about the items that were forwarded from the LINCS Committee to this committee. So I would like to just go down by the numbers that was presented in there. Items 1 and 2, which primarily dealing with annual maintenance and capital improvements, also will cover items number 7 and 9, which is in relation to the same type of projects with the parks and recreation group, what we're proposing primarily going to be for all city-owned facilities, maintenance, and capital improvement plans. As I've noted in the summary update to you, we've got the framework put together for the regular maintenance and deferred maintenance items. Primarily, we're looking at right now, just looking at the five-year deferred maintenance. We're looking at approximately $27 million worth of work that needs to be done. Funding, of course, as you're all aware, has always been a challenge, trying to come up with a proper amount of funding to take care of the deferred items. We will bring up an updated list to you within the next month or so and trying to identify items that we consider to be, number one, life safety-related projects. If there are opportunities we're looking at that we can divide these projects, if some of them are pretty large in size and funding, if it can be phased in and so forth. Provide some options and opportunities there. In regard to the CIP, that's something that we've been working with the finance cabinet, specifically with Commissioner Driscoll's office in regard to putting together a new CIP system that addresses not just what General Services deals with, but overall the entire LFECG. And based on our discussions with them, they had an intern that worked on this during the past few months, and I think they've got a really good framework together. We've already had a meeting with them reviewing what's been done and what direction we're going to be taking next. So we've established what I would like to do is to next few months try to fine-tune those and go ahead and try the implementation. What we would like to do is by fiscal year 2014, the latest, to have a full-blown CIP plan that had been implemented. Once we've got the preliminary report ready, we would like to make a presentation to this committee, making sure that we've addressed all the concerns and all the feedbacks from the committee into the final report that's going to be coming up. So that's in regard to the CIP and the deferred maintenance. Are there any questions specifically in regard to those two items that are brought up? I don't see that any other member has got a question right now, but I do have one. Would you restate the amount of deferred maintenance that you've estimated? $27 million is the list that we've got, primarily dealing with issues such as roofing projects, elevator upgrade, replacement repair, HVAC issues, electrical upgrades, plumbing upgrades. A lot of those have to do with what we call the downtown campus area, and this building primarily being one of them. So we will provide that detailed list to you for your review and comments. All right. Could you just state the amount of funding provided in the mayor's budget for this year for maintenance and repairs? How much do you have allocated in your budget? Primarily we have $750,000 is what's been given to us, and that's to include any and all, be it preventive, predictive maintenance, emergency repairs, and so forth. So do you feel like that's an adequate budget for repairs and maintenance? That's a question. Everybody knows the answer to that. The answer is no, but considering what the budget situation is, we just have to make do. So we're doing a lot of prioritizing as we move forward for this current fiscal year. But we really feel like for mid to long term, we really need to take a look at what might be some viable financing options available to us to be able to take care of some of these deferred items. It's just like a little snowball. You let it roll. It gets bigger and bigger. So every year you're talking about some additional costs. All right. The $27 million estimate, what portion of that would be a capital improvement expense, and what portion would be just regular operating expenses? Oh, those are all capital improvements. Those are not your day-to-day maintenance that is required to keep the systems going. Those are all replacements, major improvements, and major repairs to the systems. Okay. And you feel that at our next meeting you're going to have a complete listing and recommendations on priorities. Absolutely. Is that your plan right now? Okay. I should be able to have that electronically sent to you probably within the next seven to ten days. that will give you some time to review. If you have any questions, you just get back with us. Okay. Does any council member have a question on items one and two, or should we move forward? Okay. John Sheed, let's go to item number three, please. Okay. Number three, as I mentioned before, we identified one, but we recently were approached by another software vendor that's going to provide us a presentation. regarding their capability of meeting all of our facilities and real estate needs. And once we shortlist the companies, we probably will definitely need to get IT group involved with this. They're going to be impacted by it. We just want to make sure the system that we are going to select will not cause any problem during the implementation and testing. and I provided a timeline of 18 months when we would like to have everything online, fully operational, and tested. Does anybody have a question for item three? Mr. Beard? Has this software been budgeted for this? Not for this year, no. There are two or three different options in regard to this type of software. where traditionally you would have purchased them, installed them on your own server, and maintained them. The newer systems they're coming up with, in my opinion, make a whole lot of sense, although we've got to make sure the IIT is comfortable with them. These are primarily all based on web access. They warehouse all the data for the city, and it's a much cheaper option than trying to purchase one. So that's why we're trying to make sure that we cover all the bases there. What do you estimate the cost would be on that? We have not gotten to that point yet. We're kind of right now looking at the capability and how it dovetails with our current information system, as well as making sure that it can exchange data with PeopleSoft, with the financial aspects of it. I would guess if you were going with a web-based anything, that's going to be more of a problem than if you had it in-house. Not necessarily. We've talked to a few companies out there, as well as some municipalities that have utilized, have switched over to the web-based, and they're telling us they have seen a whole lot of improvement, not only in terms of reduction in cost, but also being able to access it from any secured system out there. But that's what we want to make sure. We talk to people who have been utilizing the system for more than a year or two, just to make sure we're not making their mistakes and making sure we're not looking at the system with a lot of bells and whistles. A lot of these companies come up with a base module, and then you can pretty much add whatever you want to it. We just want to keep it exactly down to the level that we're really going to need the type of data. So that's the main goal at this stage, identifying a vendor that can meet our demands. When we were going through the LINCS process and budgeting, Did you talk to that link at all about this? At that stage, we were just at the very initial stages. I was talking with Conwell for Kentucky. They've got a system that they've been working with for the past, I believe, about 10 years now, and they've been very happy with, but they're also in the process of upgrading that system. So we were just gathering data at that time. At that time, primarily, we were looking at a system that would provide real estate, real properties type of activities. we found that probably would be prudent at this stage if you're going to make that investment in time and money to have one that would include our facilities, leases, finances, all of those wrapped into one. So that's what we're looking at right now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any other council member have a question? Okay. John Sheehan, let's go to number four, please. Sure. Number four kind of goes back about two years now. I think if not all of you, most of you have been involved in one capacity or the other in regard to establishing a set of policies and procedures, identifying the need for any outside agencies or partner agencies that are requesting cities subsidies, be it full subsidy, no, or what have you. At that time, it was established that we needed to go ahead and establish a process. In one page, you have the process map or flow chart identifying from the time a need has been identified all the way down to a decision that is made by the council, what steps needed to be taken. Also, in your attachment, there's about four pages that would, it's the form number GS100, primarily when an outfit, an entity, an organization identifies that there's a need in the community and they can't fill that gap or provide that need, they can go on ahead and fill this form. And the whole process is identified if you meet option A, B, C, what have you, what would be the next appropriate stages. The whole idea with this was to establish or improve transparency and accountability in regard to who are we subsidizing, how are we going to make a determination if they qualify for tax dollars, be it directly funding or in terms of providing facilities. As you're aware, we've got quite a few what I call partner agency tenants in all of our buildings right now. The whole idea is, number one, to establish this for the new ones, but also when the current leases will come up, which a lot of them are coming up, is to go on ahead and go through this process and making sure, number one, the services that are being promised for the community have been delivered. What we're proposing actually is the documentation in regard to their status as being non-for-profit. but also a business model or business plan that they need to provide to us, telling us how they plan to achieve that goal, what is the source of funding. For example, if they're only guaranteed grants for one year for a program, there's no need for us to enter into a contract for four, five, six, ten years. So those are the items that this form and this process map would identify step by step. We're getting other departments involved. Those are the departments, for example, social services would be one that's quite a bit going to be involved with this process. We want to make sure they and the drivers sit in regard to identifying who would qualify for those services. But as I say, it's a lot of information, but we try to be as specific as possible, identifying each step and who's going to be involved. Law is going to be involved. This committee and the council is going to be involved. So we're making sure that all the base has been covered legally and in terms of need determination there. Any questions from Council members? Oh, thank you, Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, thank you very much for bringing this forward. You know, this work started on this particular policy in partnering with the Oversight Committee and it was transferred into this committee whenever that committee went away. You and your team have done just a phenomenal job with this very forward thinking. I appreciate all the hard work that you've put into this and just ask you to continue on. And anything that I can do to help you, I'd be more than happy to do so. Thank you very much. You've been instrumental getting this together. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Jamshed. I have just a couple questions. On page, I guess it's page 5 of the general government packet on the questionnaire, and then on the previous page where you talked about the justifications for facility usage, can you give us or give me an example of on those three 1A, 1B and 1C the legal requirements that's on page six can you give me an example of each like an authority or commission created by LFUCG charter ordinance or resolution would that be something like Lexart Lexart would be also, for example, we've got the Mr. O'Neill's operation that we are providing spaces to. Okay. So that's primarily, that's what we've got. The county clerk's office, those are the spaces that we're talking about. Those are the entities that we are requested or we are legally obligated to provide. And then, okay, on 1C, is that the partner agencies like what we have in the Black and Williams Center? Absolutely. Those are just a lot. All of those. Now, can an entity, will we do anything then about, for example, we just talked about LexArts, they sublease space. Yes. So how does that fit into the big picture here? That's a very good question. And parallel to what we're doing in here, we're also evaluating all of these leases. There's so many different versions and varieties out there. We're trying to create one template that's going to keep everything consistent. In regard to subleasing, for example, some of the leases specifically identify there are no subleasing allowed. There's nothing in it. There's some other ones that say they're allowed to. So we would like to, part of that lease modification that we're working on currently, we'll address every one of those items. The bottom line is we want to be in control of who is being sub-listed into these facilities, say so per se. And if their funding is being exchanged and so forth, we want to make sure that it's equitable and the city is also recouping some of those costs. Will you get involved at all, or will LFUCG get involved at all when you look at subleases? Will you look at their rent, how much it is, if they're up to date on their rent, those kinds of things? Absolutely. That's what we plan to do. That would be our proposed solution to those issues. I know there are some issues out there with sub-lices and their relationship with the primary leasee and so forth, and we feel like we probably need to take the lead role in that regard, make sure that those issues will not happen again. That's a good idea because the farther away it gets from LFUCG, the more potential challenges there could be. Absolutely. Thank you very much. We always discourage sub-leasing, and I know sometimes it's the nature of the beast you have to deal with it, So we want to make sure we prepare it for it, and we've got a legal frame work put together for the lease that would add us to all those issues. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Chair. John C. following up on Vice Mayor's question about the monies being paid, who is actually collecting the money for us as a government? Is there one individual within your department that goes and collects the rent? Do they mail them in? They mail them in. It's part of their lease. When we meet with what, let me go back, a lot of the partner agencies currently occupying our spaces do not pay any lease at all. Very few lately that we've been involved with pay some toward prorated electric, gas, utilities, and so forth, but nothing really per se for the space itself. And obviously that's a cost that the city is subsidizing right now. And you've got primarily three groups when it comes to our tenants. You've got one which are ALF ECGs. That's pretty much a straight cut, although we're going to recommend some changes and modifications being made to that also. The second one are the partner agencies, non-for-profit. And the third ones are for-profit ones, for example, the shops that we have at the Victorian Square and so forth. Those are handled completely separate. We've got a lease. It comes before the council for review and approval, and those are spelled out exactly what they're responsible for and what we provide. And those are leased out as fair market value, and we've got some really good leases, five-year, six-year leases right now. It's spelled out in the contract how often they need to pay. In those cases, it would be monthly, and it's come to LFECG directly and gets logged in. in regard to the middle group, the partner agencies, is handled the same way. In some cases, it might be easier for them to pay on a quarterly basis or biannual. We can provide. We need to have some flexibility. There are some of these smaller groups probably, you know, might be a hardship for them to do it on a monthly basis. In that case, we don't have any issue trying to accommodate them. So those are some of the items we're incorporating also into the new lease war frame. So speaking about the middle group only, are we tracking what each group is paying and what they're not paying? Yes. What I'd really like to do is take it one step further. We had this discussion in our social service committee. We're giving a lot of money away to run programs at operational costs, but what we're not considering as part of that benefit we're giving to people is the free rent. And we need to put an economic value on what we're giving away so it's fair comparison across the board as to what really LFUCG is doing. So can you assign on a third comment the economic benefit of if they had to pay lease monies or if they had to pay the full utility, what we're really giving them? I'd be glad to. Because if we don't do that, we're never going to compare apples to apples. We had the same discussion internally between do we want to charge lease directly or when they come in and they're provided funding and it's been treated, for example, as a professional services type, then the funding that is needed for the real estate portion of it also should be put into the fundings being made available to them, and then they can draw out of that. That way, in my opinion, you're keeping the accounts very clear and clean, who's paying for what. Because the cost and the pricing is going to be different depending on the locality, the building, the age of the building, all the things that goes with it. So we've got data that we can provide you. That would not be an issue. said we had some discussions on what might be the best way to approach this. Let's say Organization X come here and say, okay, we want to provide this community service for the next three years. Here's a source of funding, but we also need X dollar a month from the city. Well, that's when we kick in and we're going to take a look and see what would be their space needs. We have the space available for their specific needs, and what would be the cost associated with that space. and be able to put actual dollar value on it. And then they can just come back and say, I need 1,000 square foot, $8,000, 8,000 square foot per year, and that could be added to the funding that they're being given. Hey, can we get that before next budget cycle? Can we start compiling that? Because what it's going to come down to is there's an agency out there that helps they don't get any funding from LFUCG, yet they're in one of our properties getting free rent, free utilities, and to me that is funding. We are supporting that, and that needs to be known. People need to understand that. Because every year we have new people coming to us asking us for those assistance methods. So we need to be able to clarify what we're going for each group. What we're proposing part of these policies, and that's something CM Lane championed and I think would be a good compromise at this point, is we average about $8 a square foot in terms of maintenance, facility, upkeep, and so forth. The idea was those who are currently our partner agencies that are probably not paying anything, Effective, and that would be brought up to the full council for the hearing, is to create a transition period of three years. Well, we can the first of the year being, for example, July of, next July coming in for the fiscal year 2013, they're going to pay $4 a square foot, which would partially bring some money back for us to offset some of that expense. Second year would be $6, and by the third year would be $8. I want to remind you that is not to generate additional funding. That is just to apply toward the ever-increasing cost of utilities and upkeep. So it's not really a rent per se. It's a partial rent to offset the expenses. Yeah, I'm not necessarily advocating to make people start paying. What I want to see, though, is I want every agency listed on our partner agency list that we're either giving in-kind to or money directly. Absolutely. Because that needs to be known. We've got a list of all the tenants, where they're at, what score footage they occupy, and we'd be more than glad to provide you a full report on those. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Kegg. Thank you, Chair. A couple of questions, John. First, in terms of the way the budget works and the way the bookkeeping works, the fees that people now pay on the facilities that they occupy, does that go into the general fund? Is that not in the budget for facilities? No, right now the way the accounting procedure is set up, it goes directly to the general fund. What we're going to be discussing with the budgeting and the finance group is to create a revolving account where that funding will go back in. And we want to put that program together for every facility. Therefore, you've got a revolving fund. When the time comes to change that roof or upgrade the electrical and so forth, the funding, if not all of it, most of it should be there. Okay. Well, I would support that initiative. And though I understand about a transition period, from the outside, it seems that the simplest thing would be to have all people who occupy LFUCG buildings paying rent. Absolutely. And then in terms of bookkeeping, it's really easy. If you want to grant them the money to cover that rent, you do that. And if you don't, you don't. and we don't have to figure out what might be the market rate. And then a partner agency can determine on its own whether that rate is competitive and whether they need to be in a government building or not. Absolutely. We've had some discussions with partner agencies, giving them a heads-up about what might be happening. And we've already got some good feedback from them that some of them probably are already looking, even when they start paying the $4 a square foot, they start looking at reducing their footprint, which is in line with what there's an incentive right now for them to reduce that. Great. Well, thank you for this work. Sure. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Martin. Sorry, Chair, I don't think it got hit by an accident. I'm not sure I hit it. Thanks. Thank you. Well, let's see, I have a couple of questions. The first question is, how many square feet of city-owned real estate properties are being used by non-LFUCG tenants? Sort of a moving target at this stage. We've got some that are coming. We've got some that are gone for about a year that we were not informed of, which, by the way, that's what this form and process flow will identify. In terms of percentages, I would venture to guess that probably right now we've probably got probably 30%, 35% is what we're looking at. And one way or the other are directly non-LFUCG entities. And we're breaking that down on that. And when we give you that report that CM Standard asked for, we'll identify exactly the score footages and what percentage does that represent based on the total score footage of the city. Do you have a monthly report on tenants in the buildings and what the rents are being paid each month? Yes, we keep a pretty good track of those. And as my family had a couple that kind of were falling behind, and we were sending out notices to make sure that the rent's being paid. in a timely manner. Would it be possible to provide the members of the committee with a copy of the monthly reports starting in January of this year just to give us sort of a trend line of what it looks like? Can you tell me how many tenants will need to be evaluated? In other words, how many non-LFUCG tenants do we have in the buildings? I don't have the exact number right now. We're glad to provide it to you. As I said, we're updating. As a matter of fact, we're going through every facility. We've got specifically the ones that traditionally have been utilized a whole lot more by partner agencies and doing a physical inventory of where they're at, what room's been occupied, and so forth. And we're finding some discrepancies there. You know, facilities, you might have tenants that were issued the 500-square-foot facility, By now, during the past few years, they've grown into 1,000 to 1,200 square foot just because somebody moved out next door and so forth. So we actually go on building by building and identifying exactly. And we've got floor plans. We're doing color coding, who's staying where and so forth, creating a database that we can provide that data for you very shortly. Okay, that's not real good information to have. if the tenants can move in and out and we don't have control over that, and we're providing free rent, paying for utilities and maintenance repairs, insurance, security. Yeah, we felt strongly that we need councils to consider a resolution or what have you in order to put some weight behind the proposed policies that we can go on ahead and really try to enforce this 100%. Okay. All right, the other question I had is you have three forms here. One is for fully subsidized. One is for partially subsidized. Is there any reason that you just couldn't have one form for subsidized and so we have less paperwork? We can. That's what we send it out. I appreciate any feedback you all give us. We'll definitely work on this, try to minimize the amount. Do you feel that maybe the government needs to set up some type of a resolution that says that we would set the rents for every property at the beginning of each fiscal year and the chargebacks for the operating expenses, and we would have to approve all subleases. Nobody can move in the building without approval of the government and basically be more forceful in the management of the property. Do you need more legislation from the council to give you enough authority to manage these properties? I mean, it sounds like we're not doing that great of a job of managing it, just what you're telling me today. We're doing our best. the old habits are very hard to break. We're getting a lot of pushback internally and externally, so that's why I feel like this is definitely a right step in the right direction, and what you're proposing to me, that would provide us even with a bigger tool to go on ahead and move forward with this. Who is your liaison in the legal department for legal work? We deal really with every one of them, but Mike Sanner. Okay. Do you think that you can maybe meet with him and ask him to – oh, that's not correct, Mr. Sanner. Oh, it is? Okay. Okay. Do you think it would be possible to meet with Mr. Sander and maybe draft a resolution to submit back to this committee about how we can take charge of our real estate assets and not just squander this valuable commodity that we have and try to operate in a more efficient way? I'd be glad to. And then we can review it here maybe at our next meeting. It shouldn't be unreasonable to ask for that information. The other question I have is on these facility usage evaluations. Who does the evaluation and who signs off on the recommendation? Well, it starts with a department. Let me use, for example, social services because they do a lot of those. They've got their hands full. I think this is really going to help Commissioner Mills over there with identifying this. If I provide a community service, then obviously that's the starting point for me to go to the Department of Social Services. Then they're going to assist with filling out this form, and then social services internally can have a group that are going to look at these and identify if they meet any of the criteria for being provided any types of subsidies, not partial, full, or none, just if they're qualified to be considered further. Once that's identified and it comes to our department, we're going to take a look, and we're going to try to do the need assessment specifically in regard to the facility, locality, and so forth. And if you have any questions and clarifications needed, obviously there would be discussions between us and social services. Once we get to a point where everybody's comfortable with what we've got, obviously we're going to send everything to law for their review and approval. and then it's going to come to the council through the blue sheet process for reading and approval. So you expect the council will approve each one of the agreements and whether we subsidize fully or partially or we charge full rent, that would be up to the council to make the decision? Well, thank you for passing that duty along. We appreciate it. Thank you. That's all my questions. I believe Council Member Blues has a question now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to ask where we are on this facility occupancy questionnaire. Have you started to send it out yet? No. When will that be done? We have a presentation, if Council would like to do so, at the 3 o'clock meeting this afternoon. and if everybody's comfortable with it, this is just a draft, we can go back and fine-tune everything and actually submit it as a request for a resolution and then get the two readings. As soon as we get the readings, we have the official green light to move forward with establishing these. But this is not going to be something new because we've already had discussions with a lot of other departments. We've had a lot of discussions with the current tenants who fall under one of these categories. But we wanted to have the council's review and a resolution that we can go on ahead and move forward with this. Is formal authorization a necessity? We believe so at this stage. To be honest with you, originally we were looking at this as administrative sort of policies. We feel strongly that with Council being involved, I think we probably have a much better chance of getting it fully implemented and increase the chance of success. And if the Council does authorize this, what's your timeline then for moving forward? As soon as we get the authorization, we prepare to send copies of this to all the current occupants, all the partner agencies that would be effective as of July 1st of 2012 for the fiscal year 2013. We need, obviously, to get all those brought back to us for evaluation and so forth. We're hoping about three to four months we'll be able to get the current tenants either classified or request some additional data but be able to finalize about their status with the city. Now, as soon as it's approved by the council, any new partners that show interest in needing some space or subsidies, this would apply to. So you've got two different groups. You've still got a group that's already here, and you've got potential organizations that might be approaching us. Very good. I hope we can move forward with this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John P. G., thank you for coming and bringing this to us today. I guess my comments might overlap with some of my colleagues. I'd like to see an ordinance, because an ordinance is sort of more permanent. It appears in the books. People can pull it out and look at it. Resolutions sometimes tend to sort of drift off over time, and ordinances are more permanent, formal things. So that's obviously up to the group and up to the council, but it would give folks perhaps more guidance about our facilities policies. The other item, though, is that we might want to consider requiring all of our tenants to pay rent, a rule that they actually had to pay rent, but that the council could give grants and award grants to one or more applicants to basically fund that rent on behalf of the applicant or on behalf of the tenant. I mean, this would get away from sort of the standard that, oh, we're going to rent from the city and they're going to give it to us free. And I think a grant from the council each year, either with the budget or something else, would be a more, they would have to come back to us, and it wouldn't be an assumption that if we're going to be in the city space, it would be free. And it would be more at the will of the council and subject to, I guess, individual review. I mean, because I couldn't tell you who else is getting rent free from us. And so it would require more affirmative action from the council. But those are just two ideas. Again, thanks for coming with us. We look forward to working with you on trying to have something more formalized. So thanks. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to kind of follow up on that note. We've heard a couple of council members now talk about actually requiring them to pay, at least on paper, and then the council and administration will determine whether or not we want to gift that to them as an in-kind service. When you go back to the chair earlier talking about Mr. Sanner and looking at what we do to enforce this, I do agree that we make it an ordinance rather than a resolution. Can you speak to, I know last time you were before us, you talked about an entity out there that when you did the walkthrough, you looked at what space they wanted, set the lease in place. Subsequently, you find out that they've changed locks on doors in our building and occupying space that they're not paying for. Is that situation still the same? It's improved some, but we've still got some issues. The organization in question, their lease runs out at the end of November. So we are in the process of evaluating what might be the options and try to at least be proactive, trying to get the wheels rolling if they're interested in to stay in the space, identifying it. And as a matter of fact, they will fall under a new lease, so we're going to start from scratch with them in regard to what they need to be paying and what the usage would be. The usage has changed specific locations and so forth. So that's another thing that we wanted to recommend to the council is anybody who's been approved to be in our facility to provide those type of services, come back every year at least annually, provide a report. It doesn't have to be even a presentation. That would be your call, but at least receive something that says we provided these types of services, how many people in the community utilize it and all that, and give us an idea of what their plan would be for the next 12 months. Do they think their type of service is going to change, their scope, and so forth? So, yeah, that's definitely a good point. But we're working with that specific tenant, and I'm hoping we'll come up with some kind of resolution there. Okay, because that also helps us understand if, for example, we're giving an agency space for less than market rate, we as a government can understand whether or not we want to continue doing that based on the outcomes that they presented to us from last year or from the previous year. Also, I would say that all the partner agencies have either a commissioner or a director to which they report. So if you look at, you know, there's partner agencies across the spectrum of government, but even the ones that fall into economic development report to a particular person inside our government. So it will be easy to go back to that person as well and look at their quarterly or monthly or whatever reporting they're having to do to see if that commissioner or director also think that this is warranted to either leave them in there, leave them at the same rate of reduced rent or modify that. That's a great idea. Thank you very much. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following up on some of the comments that have already been made about ways to, I guess what I think we're moving toward, hopefully we're moving toward, is separating out the question of facilities from the question of grants. So that we have a grant process that might include support for facilities, but we're not in the business of a separate process that says do you qualify for a free lease or a subsidized lease. So again, I just want to be clear about this. It seems to me what that would mean is that this evaluation system which you've developed would be a short-term process while there's a move toward eliminating those subsidies. Am I understanding that correctly? That's correct. Again, this is going to be, in my opinion, a fluid document as we move forward. But this by no means we, as much as we've tried to come up with something as comprehensive as possible, I'm sure that we can come across some issues and items and so forth that we have to make changes as we move forward. But to answer your question in the short term, that's correct. This is something that brings additional credibility to the system and how we identify who's coming and who's going and who's responsible for the facility. So it's going to take care of a lot of our most immediate issues and concerns. Okay, and is it also fair to say that at the end of this process, the two-, three-year process, what we would have is a system in place that had all of our facilities at fair market value with partner agencies able to rent those if they so choose, and that the granting process would be separate from that. I guess except for there are, I understand there are a few, and you've got them indicated in the different forms, a few partner agencies that we are contractually or legally obligated to provide that support from, so they'd be separate. And those we're probably going to take a closer look at, too, to be honest with you, because it's been done for the past 20, 30 years. doesn't necessarily mean we still have to stay within that. We've got groups that are occupying spaces that when we look at the number of occupants within that floor, within that group, that actually exceeds quite a bit the national standards in terms of space needs and so forth. So we're even going to take a look at those. I mean, do you really need 600 square foot per person when the national standard is 120 to 150? So I think we probably even have some room to be able to gain some from through this whole process, evaluating what's going on and the number of people in the facilities and so forth. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Martin, you're up again. Thank you, Chair. Just one last, I guess, thought. You know, no group or person should occupy a city space without a lease. that's not the city. I mean, as you know, there's far more in the lease than just the rent. You've got insurance obligations and maintenance obligations. And one of the worst things that can happen is that if they're in there without a lease, that they're sort of deemed to be a tenant from year to year, because then you can't get them out. So that should happen almost immediately, is that we don't have any folks occupying space. Even if we're giving them free space at this point, they should have a lease and have a written lease and it should be looked at by the law department. At max, what we're proposing is to lease. The base lease would be three years, two additional years, the option to renew, and no more than that. Right now we've got leases that are open-ended. There's no end to them. There are leases that are for 99 years on facilities that's only got maybe 10, 15 years of useful life left on them. So I agree with you. That's been one of our issues that we've been having with these leases. Thank you, Chair. Okay, as Chair, I think I'll be the wrap-up comment here. I think there's been a lot of good suggestions made at the meeting today. A couple of things I'd like to see the attorneys, when they're preparing your ordinance to consider, is that all tenants would pay. I think that is a very good point, and we would give grants to the tenants to offset the rent cost if we felt that was appropriate. The other point, though, that I think is critical is we need to move forward on this with abandon and have a schedule. And I would like to see us be able to tell the tenants what the fee will be effective January 1, so they'll know what the fee will be, but it will be January 1 of 12. but it will be effective on July 1, the beginning of the FY13 fiscal year, so that the organizations won't get short notice. They'll be able to put it in their budget. They'll be able to discuss the request for grants with us over a six-month period so we have a smooth transition, and everybody has an opportunity to discuss all the issues at hand. So I hope you've got all those notes, and you can get with the legal department promptly. I think the best thing would be to have you structure the initial ordinance and then bring it back and we can review it. Does anybody else have a question? Mr. Stenet. Currently now, is every organization in our facilities, nonprofit and for-profit, are they on the same lease calendar year or same lease beginning start date, or are we all over the board on? We are all over the board, and that's something that might be an opportunity when we get the new leases out. We're kind of trying to get them all started and stopping at the same time. I think it makes it a whole lot easier to keep track of them and be able to get into negotiation if any changes. And there may be a reason why some are not on the same year, but I think if we can get everyone July 1 eventually, that would help our government, help our budgeting process. And we know when all of our leases begin and when they all end. So if we can shoot that, that would be good, too, if we can add that in the ordinance. Sure. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also, the point about notification, you've already notified almost all these entities that this was coming, right? We've had discussions with the majority of them. We also had discussions with the internal departments who will have direct contact with them. As a matter of fact, what CM Lane recommended, we've already started that process for six of our main buildings buildings that have primarily been occupied by outside agencies, partner agencies. And we're going to provide every tenant will receive a report that says this is what you're occupying directly. This is the common areas that also applies on a pro-rated basis. And this is what you're going to be paying annually as of July 1, 2012, 2013, and 2014. We give them an idea of what they're looking at. Okay. And in that communication with all the agencies, the ones that have already gotten received a heads up, can you make sure you put that in there so that we've got a record that this isn't the first time you've heard of this? Absolutely. And then also, as the attorneys work on the ordinance piece of this, we talked about everybody paying rent, and then the government may forego the rent in some cases. I would like to see that piece of it be a part of the budget process so that as the budget's put forth and ratified, it's clear in that budget that these folks are receiving this amount of money in a rent voucher, if you will. And that helps us, again, go back to those who are saying that they're not receiving things from the government to be able to say, yes, you are, and this is what you're receiving. Sure. Thank you. Mr. Stinnett, do you have other comments, sir? No, I'm good. Okay. All right. Well, let me thank you, Director Jamsheed, and we will now call Director Hancock with Parks and Recreation up. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. Good morning. Good morning. In continuing John Sheed's approach, I think in front of you you have a spreadsheet that has 1 through 12 items on it, and parks is identified here as 6 through 12. And what I've helped you all understand, hopefully, is when we intend to come back, as you requested, to give you a full presentation on each of these items. Number six is the first one. It's the Parks Acquisition Fund. There are dollars assessed to building contractors that go into the parks acquisition fund. What I would like to provide you in November is a full explanation of how those dollars have been used. Twice in the last 10 years, we've gone back to the builder community to ask if those dollars could be used in bad budget times for park maintenance activities. that actually took place once and most recently that did not happen and I'd like to explain to you some thoughts about how this language of this fund might be modified going forward. I'll need some help from law to craft some ideas and to help explain to me what the true history of this ordinance is, which predates me. So it's my intention to come back to you to see if we can't make this fund more helpful to parks for maintenance purposes and not just land acquisition in the future. This generates between $200,000 and $400,000 a year. There's about $1.3 million there. The last time we used it was five years ago to buy a couple hundred acres at Raven Run, some piece of property called the Crawford property. So it's not something we use. it's good to have, but as I've said to you before, we have a lot of land in parks. What we need perhaps more than new land is the ability to develop it and to do capital maintenance on some of it. So I intend to come back and we can have a discussion about how that fund might be improved, if you will. Any questions on that issue? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also, Dr. Hancock, if you could, and I don't know if you have it, but if you could round up the written record on this fund, because I think the last time, not long after I got on the council, we requested that we use some of that money to acquire some land and the persons who are contributing to that fund said, one more time, but after this, we're probably not going to let you do that again. I think that's in writing somewhere. I'm not positive. But could you put together the written history on this fund? Sure will, sir. Thank you. Council Member Stenwick. Thank you, Chair. Jerry, thank you for the update on that. I would think that some type of modification could be necessary, but I would focus more on a capital improvement use versus a general annual maintenance use. I think that would get out and maybe possibly potentially get out of hand from their end, and they may not want to see that money used for general maintenance that we probably should be doing anyway, but focus more on maybe making changes to the language on the capital end of things. Because I know you have some pretty large capital projects, and maybe develop some type of capital plan each year we'd submit, and as long as they didn't have an issue, then we would move forward that way. I think that potentially has more legs to get through that process versus any type of annual maintenance issues. No, I agree. Those same individuals would benefit, presumably, in capital maintenance contracting activities. So I agree with you. I don't want to see it used for regular maintenance. I want to see it used for large-scale improvements. So as soon as you can maybe give us some ideas on language changes on that, I think we can definitely take a look at that, and it would be something rather than just having money sit there that could potentially be used to benefit the whole community. Thank you. Will do. Thank you. Yeah, I have a thought on this also. is that I think it would be helpful if we could look back over the record of how we've spent these funds maybe over the last 10 or 15 years and to what, for example, I know in my district money went into Raven Run development. That's my recollection to buy some of the land out there. But I think if we could just see where the money's gone over a 15-year historical past, that would help us look into how it's been used and what we might want to do in the future. I'd be happy to do that. That's all I have on that. So you may go forward now. Thank you. All right. Number seven was partially touched on by John M. Sheed. Parks' annual maintenance has a number of different elements. He mentioned that he thought there was $27 million in general government structure, deferred maintenance. I think parks has that volume of deferred maintenance alone, and I'll be sure and sit with Jamshid to make sure that that's covered. Ten years ago or more, in 1998, when the first parks master plan was developed, they identified about $100 million in deferred maintenance and capital improvements that were recommended. Some of those things have been done. Some of those ideas are no longer valid, but parks does have a substantial number of dollars of deferred maintenance in buildings that could use some improvements. So part of what he spoke to in number one and number two will also pick up the parks deferred maintenance. The question of trails, which has just recently come to our attention because we've just begun to build them, they have a certain lifespan as well. environmental quality is looking at the cost of trails now and are going to meet later this month to address some issues associated with how we fund trails trails are wonderful but with the freeze-thaw cycle they crack they break, things happen, things get vandalized, etc. So I think number 7 will become a part of number 1 and number 2 above and we'll come back to you at a later time with John Sheet and incorporate parks' needs in the same way that we address needs of other divisions and their buildings. Is there any reason you couldn't do a similar type report of the listing of the parks' properties and the amount of deferred maintenance and how much you feel like it would be required by property so we have that information to review? I can, Mr. Chair, be anecdotal and imprecise. I don't have anybody that can estimate a major roof or a major HVAC system, plus or minus 20 percent. We could probably get the same accuracy that John Sheet has, but yes, I'll be happy to put that together. We've got 100 parks and 4,000 acres. We probably have 200 buildings, but each of them has a certain cost associated with them, but I'll be happy to work on that. Okay. Council Member Martin has a question. Thank you, Chair. director thank you for coming and just as an aside i know you we had a comment from one of my parks recently and you responded immediately the next day and i appreciate it i was out at dogwood trace park last night and it just looked great and so i appreciate everything you guys are doing in in such difficult budget times i know you guys are stretching things as far as you can and so i know we all appreciate that um we talked about this before but you know i i think amenities and maintenance is really a bellwether of the health of a community. When someone comes to Lexington from someplace else, they go to a park, and if it's run down, it's got weeds everywhere, if it's got a leaky roof or a water fountain doesn't work and things like that, that tells folks who come to Lexington about us. And so I think it's so important that we maintain our parks, that we have excellent facilities at parks. And so I think this is really part of a larger discussion about how are we going to adequately maintain what we have. And, yeah, we want new facilities, too, and I support that, but we have to adequately maintain what we have. We have to make sure that the things work, that it's well kept so that not only our own citizens, but also folks who come here from other places. We are inviting more and more folks into our community in connection with our public events and things. So I look forward to trying to find a way to give adequate funding for parks for this, because I think it's just very, very important. I had the pleasure of living in Ann Arbor for two years, and the parks up there were just tremendous. And I think ours rival those, but it's just a statement of how community is faring. I mean, if our parks are run down, then folks are going to think Lexington is run down. I mean, there's just no doubt about it. The two are absolutely connected. So I appreciate your efforts and appreciate you bringing this to us and look forward to trying to find a solution to give you the money you need. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Okay, please go ahead and proceed now. To go on to number eight, we're prepared to bring you a Parks Aquatic Master Plan in December. We've already started that effort. I've done a lot of Internet research. there's an awful lot of material out there as we all know on every subject and I've already pulled down a number of aquatic master plans from other communities our size we're about to engage in in four different surveys of the community different types of users to bring user data together we'll also have at least one public meeting for folks I know Councilman Myers has done some research on his own in his community so we're looking forward to bringing that forward and hopefully this group can help us identify ways that we can fund some of the recommendations we'll be bringing forward it's a big deal it'll be very contentious there'll be a lot of differences of opinion as there always are pools are pretty important to people that live close to them so if we'll all stay positive I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to try and solve the funding issue with respect to swimming pools in the community, and we'll do that in December. Any questions on that issue? There are no questions. Just keep continuing. Number nine is the same issue, again. It has to do with capital improvements. We lost a couple hundred thousand dollars this year, which is going to hurt us, but we'll survive, and next year hopefully our budgets will be more generous. Again, this is subsumed in major part with what John Sheet is going to do on number one and number two, and we'll have a separate list of these capital items and tell you how we have historically spent this couple hundred thousand dollars each of the last several years on non-capital items. Any questions on number nine? Okay. Number ten, the Conservancy. There have been a number of efforts council-driven and parks-driven over the last couple of years, and we have identified several outstanding models like the Olmstead Conservancy in Louisville and 21st Century Parks in Louisville and Central Park in New York as models for us. I'm in the process now of talking to civic leaders privately about their interest in possibly sitting on a one-year board that would help flesh out and kickstart a private philanthropy effort here in the community that would be separate from government. I'm reluctant to bring forward to you rules and models and bylaws and all those sorts of things until I can sit with people and ask them their opinion of how they'd like to see this structured. I would expect to come back to you in the fall and say, These three individuals have agreed to meet, and we've got some thoughts on how to structure this. I'd like to keep it as open and non-governmental attached until such time as those leaders can tell us their comfort level with respect to private funding and what rules, if any, they might want to see to connect us. So this is in abeyance. It's ongoing, and I'll be back to you this fall with hopefully some good news of some people you all know who have agreed to help us. Any questions on the Conservancy item? The Parks Expansion Fund No. 11. There is, in fact, an exaction fee program, which I think the Lynx Committee may have misunderstood for me back in February. But I have asked the Planning Division to come with me in February. I think it's February. And, yes, and give you a presentation on the exaction fee program, how it's been set up, what federal laws are involved in all the restrictions and whatnot, to go over how that's been used to help us acquire facilities and land in the expansion area recently. Chris King will make that presentation with me in February. Lastly, number 12, as in the Aquatic Plan, we will present to you a golf master plan in December that will look at the golf courses, their history, the history of golf in the region over the last 10 years. We have some difficult decisions to make together with respect to golf courses in the community, and, again, that will be a very widely participated in group of data collection. We'll have some public meetings, and we'll come back. We'll talk about our golf courses in anticipation of the tough decisions you'll have to make with the budget for next year. So that will be, again, in December. December will be a big month for both of us. Any questions? Okay. We do have a question here. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I want to go back, if I could, to the Park Conservancy issue. Yes, sir. The administration has, in the last actually two, three months, set up two very high-profile public-private efforts that have to do with planning of economic development and then with the Rupp Arena and the related area, it seems to me that parks should get the same kind of attention. And so I'm interested in actually, it's not a question perhaps for you, but maybe for Mr. Maloney. Would it be possible to engage the mayor and other people who are more visible in the administration in putting some effort into creating a more high-profile group of people who would work on the parks and surgencies. I think this community recognizes how important the parks are and that they will be increasingly important, and I believe it deserves that kind of effort. So just a suggestion. Thank you. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On number 12, the golf course management, When you come back in December, will you also have more information on what it costs to run each course individually? Yes, sir. Okay. And then finally, maybe there should be number 13 on here, which would be Park Master Plan. I know you talked to us before in a previous meeting about Park Master Plan and the need to get that done so that you can get your accreditation. When do you plan on coming before us with that plan? And it seems like all these items, 6 through 12, would be a part of or some part of that plan. What I would prefer to do in all candor is wait until after December. The aquatics thing and the golf thing are going to be huge, contentious, possibly, discussions that we'll have. I would like to get through those, and I think the remainder of the master plan will be much more straightforward. If you don't mind, I'd rather wait until January or after December. Let's get the golf and aquatics thing, which will be huge projects for me. And after that, I think putting recommendations on the master plan together would be much simpler with your conclusions on golf and aquatics than without them. What's your timeline on having to get your accreditation done? We have a site visit, which will occur in the spring. and then we will have to go to NRPA in the fall to be juried, if you will, for that site visit. So we have until the spring to have this question of the master plan and its acceptance settled. When you say spring, is that March, April? It's April, May. April, May, okay. And then finally, if I could, as a part of the master plan, I know Councilman McCord and I have talked about different opportunities to create funding for parks through enterprise operations like softball, soccer, having tournaments here, that kind of thing. We've talked about locating a few more fields here so we could do some of the things they do in Owensboro and other parts of the state. will you look at that as part of your master plan? And I know he stepped out, I think, but I'm sure that he would be happy as I would be to sit down with you and kind of update you on some of those things and see where you can go in that direction. Be happy to, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to go back to the Parks Conservancy idea and just simply add a couple comments. perhaps the way to go would be what Councilmember Kay suggested. I would ask the administration if you want to go to a high-profile committee to first look at what the Parks Advisory Board is already looking at because they've put in some time and authorized Jerry to go forward asking some folks who have been major supporters of parks to start this effort. And I would hate to have this idea of a high-profile committee undermine what's already being worked on. So maybe some coordination of effort. And I think that what has already been started is a good start, you know kind of some basics and it's it's also gotten a quite a thorough vetting with the parks advisory board at least two if not three meetings so I'm just asking that the administration consider that first to be sure there's not you know well forget what's been done already we're going to go ahead with a high-profile committee and to work together on it. So that's really all. Thank you. Thank you. At our last meeting, I had made a request that you prepare an executive summary of the existing master plan and present it back to the committee so that we could sort of have a base idea of what the plan is all about without having to go through it in detail because we do have some newer members of the committee that are newer council members. I think that would be very helpful, and an executive summary doesn't have to be extensive. Maybe you could summarize it in four or five pages. If you could do that, I think that would be helpful to give the committee sort of a benchmark of where we're starting from, from the old plan, and what kind of changes you might have in the future. Councilmember Myers has a question for you now. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's more maybe for you, I think, and for the director as well. The vice mayor mentioned the park advisory board, and that's something that I think most people in government, if they know it exists, They haven't really heard from them ever. So I would like to have, particularly if they're working on some type of a plan, an opportunity for either some representatives of that group or you to present to this committee what they're working on and kind of on a regular basis give us an update on what the Park Advisory Board is doing. Okay. Is that? That's a little vague. When would you like to see that? Well, I guess since we've had a request from a couple people to have this high-powerful group put together, and now we're hearing at least for the first time from me that Parks Advisory is already working on something similar to that, if you could start by just coming in, either having someone from the board or you give us an update of what that is they're working on. I think Vice Mayor said it's been discussed in three meetings, so can you just give us an update of what that is? Surely. Would you like members of the Parks Advisory Board to do that, in which case it might be difficult? Is this meeting an easier-to-work session later in the day? It's really up to you guys. However, I think you're on there, right, Vice Mayor? Whatever you guys decided. Okay. The presenter is not a big issue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hancock. I appreciate your coming today. I'd like to call Director Chomscheid back for a second. We were going to sort of end this segment of our program on using old French fry oil to run some of our biodiesel-operated trucks. I just wanted to give us an update on that. I know I've spoken with you about that, but I think just briefing the committee would be good. We were able to get a clarification from State in regard to additives for fuel. What we provide in the summary update is very specific. Currently, as I mentioned in the last presentation, we have been utilizing biodiesel in virtually every one of our heavy equipment. And the additives is either French fry oil or soybeans. So we are utilizing some of those alternative fuels in our vehicles. but state has very strict guidelines on what is allowable to be used. At this point, any additives above and beyond the 20% is not allowed and is illegal. And so at this point, really utilizing the oil directly into our vehicles is not going to be permissible under the state laws. The Agriculture Department is the one that is in charge of putting those guidelines together and enforcing them. It seems that in one of your other reports you were mentioning, too, that the biodiesel maybe was not really cost-efficient at this time because of pricing. It varies up and down, just like the regular fuels. So we continuously keep track of them. There have been cases where during two or three months, actually, the biodiesel cost went up higher than the diesel. In some other cases, it has been equal. When it comes to alternative fuel, cost is probably, best case scenario in a lot of cases, it's a wash. What we're looking at is intangible, such as air quality and environmental impact. So, for example, the hybrid report that I sent to your office, I mean, we've looked at the industry standards and what's been looked at and studied and analyzed. And actually, hybrid over a life cycle costs more than a standard fuel. But, again, you've got tangibles and intangibles, so we have to look at a big picture in that regard. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions? Okay. The next item on the agenda is the graffiti trash abatement at Parks. And I guess that's you, Mr. Hancock. Oh, gosh. I apologize. I was thinking that you wanted to talk about this at work session this afternoon. I've got Tim Clark prepared to give you a couple of words then. and so I'm sorry I didn't bring that with me. But I can tell you that I think Mr. Myers put this in the committee. I'm not exactly sure what your interest is, but I can tell you that we have an active, highly successful graffiti abatement program. We believe we eradicate virtually all easily eradicated graffiti within 24 hours. We have to rent sandblasters, and so sometimes we have to let a few buildings add up before we rent a sandblaster to do a concrete building or something where the paint doesn't come off easily. But we think that's highly successful, and we hope that you all would agree. And as far as recycling in parks goes, again, I don't have the data with me. You can have that at 3 o'clock if you like. But we do recycle and put recycling containers at all special events where more than 300 people are expected. That's an ordinance that you have on the books that's been there about two years. But I can't stand here and tell you what the tonnage is and all the rest of that. Councilman, can you tell me perhaps more specifically what you wanted to hear, and I'll make sure that we speak to that this afternoon. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm surprised you said you didn't understand what I was looking for today because we communicated back to the office through a couple of e-mails what we wanted. But a couple of things. One, what is the plan? It used to be, at least we used to be told that there was somebody in parks that went to every park every day and cleaned up trash and graffiti. So I don't know if that was a written plan or not. But what I'd like to know is if we do have a plan, what is the plan? Okay. And I know you talk about being 30 people short. So if that is the plan, but because of your short staff, you're not able to adhere to that plan, then we'd like an update on that as well. And then also, you talked about having to rent sandblasting equipment. My concern, the reason I originally put this in the committee is that I got several complaints from neighbors of a park in the district where people had gone out and graffitied racial slurs in pretty big letters where they're really plain and easy to read and understand by kids. And it took a month to get that abated. And while we may have to rent sandbashing equipment, I don't understand why it would take a month to get that abated. And it would have been nice to have report backs saying it's going to take more time if it was going to. But also, it may have even been better to take spray paint and spray over that so that you couldn't read what was there. and it wouldn't be pretty sight, but that would be better to have for that 30 days rather than having the racial slurs out there for 30 days for people to see. So those are my concerns, is when we have situations like that, you know, what is our plan? And when we have situations that maybe fit or fall outside of what the plan's allowing us to do because we have to rent equipment or because the weather's bad and you can't get the equipment back there, then what's our backup plan? What do we do to abate foul language, racial slurs, that kind of thing, so that people aren't constantly seeing that? And I'm getting back with my constituents saying that we've got this policy and plan that we get out in 24 hours, and a week later I'm hearing that stuff's still there, and a week later stuff's still there. And I'm trying to figure out if this is new occurrences and we have people that are just coming back for more and more, or if this is the same occurrence, and it turns out that it was the same thing that just took a month to abate. So that's what I'd like to know is when that kind of thing happens, if it's going to take time to get equipment rented and back there, what's our backup plan to ensure that people don't have to continue to look at that? I'd be happy to answer those questions. I think specifically with respect to River Hill, the issue there was the water log field conditions and we couldn't get the equipment there. I think that slowed us down. But I'll bring more specifics back to you at 3 o'clock if you like, or we'll come back next month or give it to you in written form. Your pleasure. If you're prepared to speak at 3 and it's on the agenda, I'd rather go ahead and have it at 3. I know that it is, but I was under the impression that it was requested for 3 o'clock. So, again, I apologize. I wasn't focused on bringing it here this morning. We'll bring it this afternoon. You can call for us at your pleasure during council report, if you like, if that's appropriate. Okay. Well, I think Vice Mayor Gordon has a question for you now. Thank you. Well, that was, okay, I had a couple questions. How much does a sandblaster cost to rent? Do you know? No, I would just be making up a number if I told you. Okay, and can you get me that? Sure. I'm interested. And then I know the sheriff has a graffiti task force. Will that graffiti task force not go on public property? It's my understanding that they take care of non-LFUCG properties. They take care of overpasses, and they require private landowners to take care of their graffiti. But we have agreed to take all parks' responsibilities. I see. Okay. And you'll email me or get somebody, too, about the cost. And then could you clarify, Jerry, what you were saying about a presentation at work session? Is that what you were going to do for someone during council report? It's your pleasure, Wynne. I was under the impression that we would come at work session today and provide the information to you. It's not scheduled as a presentation. I know that John Sheed is presenting on the facility's use policy, but there's no graffiti presentation scheduled. So I'm a little confused about that. If you need a presentation, we can get one in the future. Vice Mayor, I, too, am confused because your staff contacted my staff about what we were wanting to hear, and we communicated that back, and I'm sure that got back to him, and it was for this committee. So I'm not sure how they ever thought that it was going to be in work session. Okay. So if we need a presentation at a work session in the future, we can certainly have that. But I don't think it's on. I'm sure it's not on for today. It was supposed to be here. in this committee. Oh, in this committee. Okay. It's not on for the day, but we need to clear up some things. I'll just talk to John. If it's on a public any of our buildings, the sheriff does help us with our buildings. It's parks that they don't go in. We'll clear this up, and I think this is a big issue not just for your district. I know Peggy has a lot of problems with that, and we'll be glad to put it on a Tuesday work session. We need the sheriff here too, I think that might be a big help too if we can get signed about that. Can we do that because I've heard that the sheriff has a backlog and I'd like to have an update on all the graffiti cleanup that's going on. In a couple weeks we'll try to get that on for you all. And so if you can coordinate that through my office, we'll look at when we don't have anything and we can have the presentation. Thank you. I apologize Thank you. I would just ask that we don't get lost in this original reason I put it in committee, and that was because if the sheriff doesn't do our parks, then that presentation is not going to address this issue. So if we have an issue where graffiti isn't always a huge deal, it's not something you drop everything to take care of, but if you have curse words and racial slurs and things, that needs to be addressed. And I remember a while back when I was on the council, there was a rule that you had ever done in 24 hours, and it worked well then. Now, what has happened lately, I would be glad to find out on that, because I kind of like that policy. Even if we can't get it, we should spray something. Yeah, at least spray something on the top of it so you can't read it. I agree with you on that, but that's something we'll put together for you all. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're moving on to item number three now. I'd like to ask the Commissioner of Law Managing Attorney, Glenda George, to come up and to overview the resolution that would amend Section 3.101 of the Council Rules. And thank you for being here today. You're welcome. Let's see here. We originally reviewed this at some time last year, and we put this on hold while we were working through the restructuring of work session. And now we're back with the two resolutions that relate to items that we would no longer bring to the council for approval. The mayor would have the authority to execute these documents, and then they would appear each meeting as part of the mayor's report to put the council and the public on notice as to which documents had been executed. If you look on page 11, where the first resolution starts, it lists several categories of documents that we would no longer put on the docket in the form of a resolution. And these are things that we have all discussed before in several of the previous meetings. There are deeds and easements, contracts that are less than $25,000, professional service contracts less than $25,000, easement releases, encroachment agreements, maintenance contracts, grant extensions where it doesn't involve the appropriation of additional funds, change orders that don't exceed 10% or $25,000 of the original contract price. And then this last section here on page 12 just states that the listing of these things that were executed will appear on the mayor's report. And then a similar thing with the resolution that starts on page 13 and ends on page 15. It's another category of documents that we would no longer bring to council if these resolutions are approved, and that would be closing statements for deeds and easements, executing grant applications, the acceptance of donations that don't require a budget amendment. And then again, there's the requirement that a listing be provided in the mayor's report. The reason that there are two separate resolutions, At some point, we had discussions about which documents would and would not require follow-up documents to be sent to the council clerk. So the committee asked me to break these out into two resolutions. But once we're ready to go forward, they will be combined into one. And that's the overview of where we are with these two resolutions. All right. George Myers, I guess he stepped out. Steve, oh, I'm sorry, George. You have a question. Oh, that was number four. Okay. Mr. Kay, you have a question. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I have a question or a comment that was left for me by Council Member Martin. So this is on his behalf. He had to leave. Okay, that's fine. And he had a question about item A, which was the execution of deeds. Yes. And his concern, I guess, was that it seemed to him that those were things that should come to council. As an example, the legacy trail would not have come to council. And he has a question about basically why that's included in this group. Well, the actual, let's see here, were funds appropriated for the legacy trail? You'll have to help me with that. Folks will have to help me. If the project itself has already received council approval, Say, for example, we ask you all to budget money to do something like the Citation Boulevard reconstruction or construction. After you've budgeted the money, then we wouldn't come back to ask for permission to execute all of the deeds. After the approval of the project has occurred, then implicit in that would be out the mayor's authority to go ahead and sign the deeds. Okay, so if you apply it to the legacy trail, once the money was appropriated, the separate deeds that needed to be executed to get the rights of way and so on simply would not come before counsel for approval, they'd be listed in the report. Correct. Okay, well, I can't follow up since he's not here, but that helps me anyway. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. I just have some questions on B.C. and probably G. As to the rationale behind the $25,000 threshold, is that an arbitrary number? Is there some mathematical rationale behind $25,000 or less? Do we do any analysis as to how many contracts we do under those that are above that, below that? Do we have those numbers? I think the $25,000 rationale came in because of what is in that CAO policy, number one. but I don't think there was any going back and looking to see how many contracts are over and under the $25,000 when this resolution was originally drafted. You have backup coming up, so. Oh, good. I'll take it. Well, I don't know how many of you all are. There was a procurement task force that was set up, and I think Councilmember Ellinger is getting ready to report that out sometime soon. And there's some crossover, I think, on these contractual issues. I believe there was some background provided to that committee. They are going to have some similar recommendations, I think, to this. My understanding of the status of that is I think he was running that through the auditor's office because that report was generated, I think, as part of that audit that was done last year. But you may want to get some consultation going on, the overlap on these, because I think you're going to see something similar but not identical to these recommendations, at least on the PSA items coming out of that committee in short order. But I do think that information was provided to that group. I think Brian Markham did an analysis with, you know, here's how many we've done generally of this amount. It would be nice if it could be provided to this group so we can have a discussion on that. So maybe we can wait until we get that. Okay, I can get that information for you. On E, the execution of equipment maintenance contracts, I know this sounds like it would be something easy just to pass by us, but all of us have been on council the last several years. We've had several of these questionable. I think to take council out of that role of approving some of those contracts would not be a good thing for transparency for the public, one to see it, and one second to allow council to vote on it. So I'm not in favor of taking out our responsibility on E. And then on the second piece, the same goes to C. I think even though it's arbitrary as it is, donations, accepting them, there are issues in timing of what type of donations we're accepting. I think the public needs to be aware of who we're getting things from for free because I do think it has a political impact. I think this council needs to approve or disapprove that as well. So I would not be in favor of that either, Chair. So thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, it isn't. Okay, go ahead. Mr. K., are you finished? Okay. I had a couple of comments and questions. On B, on the first document, isn't this when the previous administrator, We used to have $24,999, correct? And then four years ago when the previous administration came in, did we not change it to $49,999? And now it's proposed to be changed back? Is that not correct? That I don't know. I would have to check. Vice Mayor, it's my recollection that we've discussed this in committee a couple of times. and that these changes were set by a vote of the head of former committee. It was probably a committee of the whole meeting. This was back over a year ago, perhaps. And these amounts were adjusted accordingly. What I'm referring to is four and a half years ago when the Council was asked by the previous administration to change the threshold for approving contracts, and we did that and moved it up to $49,999. I mean, I don't know if anybody remembers that. And it had been $24,999, I thought. So if you could check into that, I would be interested in knowing. And then on G, the execution of change orders, I am especially concerned about that because if we give up the ability to take action on these change orders, well, I just think we should be seeing all the change orders and how they're accumulating as they go along. And then would the last paragraph where it talks about communications from the mayor, including a description of the above documents, would that also include the date? they were approved. These are previously approved items, I believe. Would that come as a spreadsheet or something with the date they were approved? Yes. Okay. And then on the second document, who, toward the end there, A, B, and C, the deed and acquisitions, deed and easement acquisitions, the grants, and the donation of goods, who would be keeping the spreadsheets and the database for documentation of all that? Would that be with law? No, it would be with the mayor's office because it would come as a communication from the mayor, so they would be logging in all of the things that are sent to the mayor's office to sign. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Perhaps I should make a couple of comments on this. The idea behind this was that even though we don't put it on the docket and we don't technically vote on it at the council meeting, that the item would be in the communication from the mayor with the same information that would be docketed, so that if there's any item on there for which there is any question, then it could be discussed at the council meeting or the work session or it could be tabled and put into a committee for review or discussion so that we would have some control over those items. But the only area that we might have a weakness in is if there's a delay in sending the information out from the mayor's office and the mayor had already signed something, but we still have a chance to review that. And the thought here is I believe the estimate, I don't have my, I did an analysis on it. It seemed like it was like $130 or $40 for each item docketed by the time you look at the man hours, the paperwork, posting everything, bring it before council for vote, and also advertising the item that was on the docket. So the idea here was if we have a $100 gift from somebody and it costs us $130 to run it through the paperwork, then actually we're losing money on gifts like that. And things like the change orders, you would still get the change order information, but if it goes over $29,999 in aggregate, that means if there were a job under construction and there were more than one change order, if the aggregate amount of the change orders was over $24,000 or 10% of the contract amount, that would have to come back for council for approval, too. So when this went through the committee, as I said, it's been a year or so ago, these items were discussed at that time. I mean, I feel the same way everybody else does. I think it's our duty as council to make sure that all the money and the funding is being appropriately spent according to the budget. But on the other hand, when it delays the operation of government, that also costs money. The failure to promptly execute a change order will drag out the construction of a job, which is bad. Or the failure to timely renew a lease for a copy machine, it's possible that the service on that could be terminated on the interim period. So the idea here was to make government more efficient without giving up the primary duties of counsel to oversee the appropriation and expenditure of funds. I throw that thought out for your consideration. And the other thing I would say is that let's not be too hesitant to make changes, because this has been tweaked so many times. If we could go ahead and run this through as a prototype and see how it works, if it doesn't work, then we can terminate it or modify it so that we would be in a position to modify the program if we had a problem with it. Did you want to say something? Yes, I'm back on new. Thank you. And we did just lose our quorum. But how then, and I apologize, I didn't have the benefit of sitting in all the discussion because this is my first meeting on this committee, but how then if an item isn't read out and it's merely posted on the Internet, does a citizen find out about it if they don't have Internet and don't go on the Internet? That's one of my big concerns, which Council Member Stenet also raised. How do they know, then, what is going on in relation to these categories? Has anyone addressed that? Well, hopefully everybody will be in the 21st century and will be able to get the information. between being streaming video available of all the meetings. There is the Internet post all of this. The council clerk has all the information on hard copy and it's likely to request a copy from the clerk. And it's also printed on the communications from the mayor would be printed on the docket on the agenda. It's given out at each meeting, so there's hard copies available there too. I think just reading it out loud assumes that people are listening in and every item verbalized on the docket. I guess another option would be to read the communications from the mayor out loud in lieu of reading it as a docket. But we still save quite a bit of money because by the time it goes through the blue sheet process, Coast or legal department. All the copies are made, and it's advertised. We have a huge expense involved in these smaller items. So maybe the option would be we could request that all of the recommendations of the mayor will be read by the clerk for the record. I applaud the effort for efficiency and saving money. I would hope it's not at the expense of transparency of government so that there are a number of items that no longer could be accessed unless you go on the computer is my concern. So perhaps there needs to be some thought given to that part of it. Okay. Yeah. Because I mean, I'm basically supportive of this effort. I think it's a good effort. if we can be sure that our citizens aren't locked out of figuring out what's going on. Thank you. Mr. Stenner, do you want to comment again? If you'd like for me to. It would be my pleasure to have you comment. I want to go back to the statement I think Ms. George said about who's going to be the record holder of these decisions that are not voted on by council. I think that's a real issue. The reason why we vote on things to dock it, it's part of the official public record that's kept by the council clerk, if I'm not mistaken. The other way, there will be no official public record about those items once they're done. It'll be housed in a mayor's office who, once it changes every four years, just use boards and commissions, for example. Every time they change, those records are lost. So I think unless you're going to retract what you said earlier. What I was referring to was the log that would show up on the mayor's report. The actual documents, the originals of the documents, are maintained in the clerk's office. I may have misunderstood the question. So like the deeds, the closing statements, all of those things do eventually make it to the clerk's office once they're executed. But in terms of maintaining the list of what appears on the mayor's report, that will be done by the mayor's office. And that would be done after he executed those items? Yes. Yeah, see, I think that's a real problem. I think we're pulling ourselves on some of this. Now, some of us do agree with the deeds and things can move forward, but some of this you're pulling the council out of executing contracts. And I hate to bring this up, Councilman Elaine, but you were very adamant back in July that council should approve every single contract when it comes to this body. And I think we are giving up that right by doing this. Even though if you set an arbitrary threshold that I hope we get information that says why $25,000 makes sense, because I believe in the past it was $10,000 and we raised it to $25,000 to give the administration more leeway. But I'm not prepared to give up our right to review contracts, especially maintenance agreements, because I know they've been very controversial before. I do think some of the release of easements and those other things are appropriate maybe to move off our actual voting docket. But the rest, I think probably from a public standpoint, not necessarily because it's only on the Internet if we approve this, but have it part of public record. Have each member vote on it. understand what we're voting on. I think it's very important. I think the public does track our votes. Thank you, sir. Okay. Vice Mayor, do you want to speak again, or is he just on there? Okay, I believe that's all we have on that particular issue. May we go to the items in committee, if anybody wants to comment on those items? Okay, I guess we're good to go on the items in the committee. Are there any other comments or any other business to be brought before the council? Committee, yes, sir, Mr. Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to ask about one item in committee, and that's the review of the citizen's advocate position. I'm pretty sure we're beyond that at this point and can be removed from the committee's agenda. All right, sir. Is that an official motion to remove from the agenda? Yeah, I would move that. Okay, we have a motion by the Council Member Blues and a second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion? All right. All right. Then let's take a vote. All those in favor of the motion of removing the review of the assistance advocate position from the General Government Committee item signify by saying aye. Discussion? Can you ask discussion first? I just asked for discussion. Okay. Okay. All right. Councilman Myers would like to have a discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess it just dawned on me that we still don't have this position filled, and I'm not sure where the committee is in its work. So although I understand that it may not be the same review that was originally put in committee that we need to have, but it would be nice to get an update on where we are in the process of hiring that position. Vice Mayor Gordon? Yes, I can give the update I gave at the last work session, which is, I don't know if it was work session or Thursday night, which is that the small work group is working on updating the job description, which hadn't been updated since 2002, and we're updating it to present to the council for approval. and my aide spent the summer contacting every one of the previously appointed search committee members, which the previous vice mayor had appointed. They've all agreed to serve again, and we've updated their contacts so they're ready to go. As soon as we get this job description to the council and, you know, amended or whatever and approved, then the committee can start their work. So we're getting closer. As a follow-up question, when that job description is completed and brought forth to the council, will it come before this committee or just full council? I'm hoping full council so that we can move it quicker. We realized when we looked at the job description it had not been updated in a long time and it was now a part-time job. and so it needed some work. So this work group meets again this week, and we're getting pretty close. If the job description is going to come before the full council, then I'm comfortable with this being taken out of committee. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Kay. Thank you, Chair. My question has to do with the conversation we just had about these two resolutions. no vote was taken. What will happen with these? What's the process going forward on getting this approved or not approved, these resolutions? We're talking about the review of the citizen's advocate position at this time, and there's a motion on the floor. Did you want to speak to that? No, I did not. Okay. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak to that issue? Okay. All right. Then I guess we can take a vote on it now. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion passes. And all right, Mr. K, do you want to go back to your question? Thank you. So it's about these two resolutions about the process. Okay, I don't think that we have that totally resolved since there's another resolution being worked on. I think we need to get the legal department back together to come back with revised resolutions for our consideration. So I would recommend that we bring that back up at our next meeting because I don't think we have anything we can really vote on today. that would be my my judgment are there any other items to be brought up to have a motion for adjournment all in favor aye thank you very much for your attendance today Everybody's looking for something