# Council General Government Committee - January 9, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 9, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2821 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2821?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-01-09 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 7,749 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 January 15, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., with Steve Kay presiding. The committee addressed six agenda items during the meeting, including the election of a committee chair, approval of meeting summaries, and consideration of policy amendments. Three motions were voted on during the session, with the committee approving the election of the committee chair, approving a summary, and approving an amendment to Section 4.104 of Council Rules. The Parks Master Plan and items referred to the committee were presented for informational purposes, while the Metro Employees Credit Union Lease and PSA was postponed for further consideration. The committee also heard six public comments during the meeting. ## Attendance **Present:** Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Jenny Scutchfield, George Myers, Harry Clarke, Ed Lane **Absent:** None **Late:** George Myers ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three motions, all of which passed by voice vote. **Election of Committee Chair** [timestamp: 0:07:01] A motion to elect Steve Kay as chair of the General Government Committee was made by Ed Lane and seconded by Diane Lawless. The motion passed by voice vote with all members voting in favor: Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Jenny Scutchfield, George Myers, Harry Clarke, and Ed Lane. **Approval of Previous Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 0:08:06] A motion to approve the summary of the November 13, 2012 meeting was made by Julian Beard and seconded by Diane Lawless. The motion passed by voice vote with all members voting in favor: Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Jenny Scutchfield, George Myers, Harry Clarke, and Ed Lane. **Amendment to Council Rules** [timestamp: 0:59:16] A motion to amend Section 4.104 of Council Rules to allow legislative review of certain documents at work sessions was made by Glenda George. The motion passed by voice vote with all members voting in favor: Linda Gorton, Steve Kay, Chris Ford, Shevawn Akers, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Jenny Scutchfield, George Myers, Harry Clarke, and Ed Lane. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included approval of two lease agreements with Metro Employees Credit Union: * **Phoenix Building and Versailles Road Campus Lease**: $9,611.25 for a lease agreement with Metro Employees Credit Union covering space at the Phoenix Building and Versailles Road Campus. * **Versailles Road Campus Lease**: $37,544.75 for a lease agreement with Metro Employees Credit Union at the Versailles Road Campus. These lease agreements represent contractual commitments totaling $47,156.00 with Metro Employees Credit Union for facilities at the specified locations. ## Public Comment Several council members raised questions and suggestions regarding Parks Department operations and budget matters during the meeting. **Grant Writer Position** [timestamp: 0:27:39] Council Member Wallace asked whether the Parks Department would seek a grant writer position in the upcoming budget, noting the potential for grants such as the Kaboom Fund City designation. Commissioner Hamilton affirmed the need for such a position and suggested the role might extend beyond Parks alone. **Volunteer Maintenance Programs** [timestamp: 0:29:54] Vice Mayor Gordon suggested exploring volunteer opportunities for low-liability maintenance tasks, including trail and greenway upkeep. He cited the Arboretum and Boy Scout projects as examples of successful volunteer initiatives. Commissioner Hamilton agreed this was a good idea and committed to pursuing it. **Weather Impact on Operations** [timestamp: 0:34:11] Council Member Beard asked about tracking daily weather data to better understand fluctuations in park and golf usage and revenue, noting extreme weather in recent years. Commissioner Hamilton confirmed that weather significantly affects operations and that trends are being monitored. **Field Rental Revenue Maximization** [timestamp: 0:38:47] Council Member Akers inquired whether all fields are fully utilized and whether a formal audit of income potential exists. Commissioner Hamilton acknowledged that no formal assessment has been completed yet but committed to answering detailed questions submitted by Council Member Akers. **Public Record Concerns** [timestamp: 0:51:26] Vice Mayor Gordon raised concerns about items reviewed at work sessions not becoming part of the official council record unless voted on. He also questioned the use of "may" instead of "shall" in legislative language and opposed the exclusion of change orders from public record. **Change Orders and Transparency** [timestamp: 0:55:59] Council Member Lane agreed with Vice Mayor Gordon that change orders should be public record and questioned whether current language would allow public access. He suggested using mayor's communications to ensure transparency. ## Appointments Steve Kay was appointed to serve as General Government Committee Chair. ## Contested Items **Public Record Status of Legislative Review Items** A procedural dispute arose regarding the public accessibility of materials reviewed during work sessions and the status of change orders in the official council record. [timestamp information not available] Vice Mayor Gordon and Council Member Lane expressed concerns that items discussed at work sessions would not automatically become part of the official council record. They also raised the issue that change orders should be publicly accessible documents. Both officials advocated for stronger language in the relevant procedures and greater transparency in how legislative review materials are handled and made available to the public. Their position emphasized the importance of ensuring that work session discussions and related documents, particularly change orders, remain part of the public record rather than remaining in a limited or unofficial status. The outcome of this dispute is not specified in the available meeting materials. ## Election of Committee Chair [timestamp: 07:01] Council Member Steve Kay was nominated and elected as chair of the General Government Committee. The motion was seconded and passed without dissent. No vice chair was appointed at this time. ## Approval of Summary The summary of the November 13, 2012 meeting was presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:08:06] Key speakers on this agenda item included Julian Beard and Diane Lawless. The summary was approved without dissent, and no corrections were made to the document. ## Parks Master Plan Commissioner Sally Hamilton presented a high-level overview of the Parks Master Plan [timestamp: 00:08:50], outlining initiatives across three operational areas: recreation, enterprise, and maintenance. **Near-Term Projects** The presentation focused on several near-term projects designed to improve parks services and facilities. Key initiatives included improvements to pools and upgrades to golf courses. Additionally, the plan emphasized enhancing maintenance efforts in downtown parks. **Long-Term Goals** Beyond immediate projects, the Parks Master Plan identified longer-term aspirations for the department. These included exploring the feasibility of developing indoor aquatic centers and pursuing national accreditation for parks services. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented as informational, with no formal action or debate recorded. The presentation provided commissioners with an overview of the department's strategic direction across both near-term operational improvements and longer-term facility and service expansion goals. ## Metro Employees Credit Union Lease and PSA [timestamp: 0:42:44] This agenda item, presented by Sally Hamilton and Piper Graham, addressed a lease agreement and Public Service Agreement (PSA) for Metro Employees Credit Union. **Lease Terms** The presentation included discussion of lease terms featuring a phased rent increase structure to be implemented over a five-year period. **Action Required** The presentation was postponed pending finalization of the Public Service Agreement by the Finance department. The PSA was identified as a necessary prerequisite before the lease could receive final approval. **Outcome** The item was postponed to allow time for the Finance department to complete the PSA documentation required to move forward with the lease agreement. ## Amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules Glenda George presented a draft amendment to Section 4.104 of Council Rules during this agenda item [timestamp: 0:44:22]. The proposed amendment would allow legislative review of certain documents during work sessions. The documents subject to this review process include deeds, easements, and price contracts. Under the amendment's framework, the council would have the ability to refer, revise, or remove items from consideration. If the council takes no action on a referred item, the mayor would be authorized to execute the document. The amendment was approved. ## Items Referred To Committee No items were referred to committee during this agenda item. The meeting proceeded directly to adjournment following this section, with a motion to adjourn that passed without dissent. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to elect Steve Kay as chair of the General Government Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the summary of the November 13, 2012 meeting - **Motion** — passed: Motion to amend Section 4.104 of Council Rules to allow legislative review of certain documents at work sessions --- ## Full transcript This is the end of the game. I'm not sure if you're a fan of the game. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Today is January 15, 2013. and it looks like we have a quorum for our first general government committee meeting of the new session. I want to welcome our new council members to this committee. Council Member Scutchfield, Council Member Clark, Council Member Akers, and welcome back our, I don't want to say old, I think I'd like to say our continuing council members and experience, yes. And so our first item of business is to elect a committee chair, and then the committee chair will appoint a vice chair. If the committee chair who is elected doesn't have a vice chair yet, who's agreed to do that, you can appoint that person next week or later this week. And then I'll ask the newly elected chair to go ahead and chair the rest of this meeting as we do have some items on our agenda. So welcome back, everybody. And I will first ask for nominations, which can be self-nominated or nominated by another council member. And if you'll log in, please. This is how we conduct our meetings, through logging in. And I see Council Member Lane. I'd like to nominate Steve Kaye for chair. So move. Second. Okay. We have a motion by Council Member Lane, second by Council Member Lawless, to nominate Steve Kaye to run for chair, not knowing if there are other nominations. I'll ask that we vote on that motion simply to nominate. Any discussion about the motion? Council Member Kaye, are you wanting to? Yeah, I just wanted to ask Council Member Lane if he were nominating me in the interest of not, he does not have an interest in serving again. Is that what I'm to take from that? Thank you, Council Member Kaye. I nominated you because I thought you would be a very competent chairman, but also I've served in this capacity as chair for two years, and I felt it was a time to pass the baton to another person. Okay. The motion is to place the name of Council Member Kay into the running for committee chair of general government. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Are there other nominations? If so, we'll have the ability to log in in just a second. And if you... Okay. Council Member Lane, are you making another motion? Another nomination? No, ma'am, but I failed to mention to you that if you did not get it noticed, I was notified that Council Member Myers would maybe late coming into the meeting, just so you would have that record. I don't know if you got that message or not. I'm aware. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other nominations? All right. Seeing none, do I hear a motion to elect Council Member Kay to the chairmanship of the General Government Committee. So move. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Council Member Clark moved. Council Member Beard seconded. To elect Council Member Kay, is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. And if you'll log it in, it'll help our aye. Aye. Okay. Anyone opposed? All right. Councilmember Kay, I will turn the meeting over to you, and if you have a vice chair already, it would be great to know that. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to the committee for the honor. I do not have, I hadn't thought about this at all, so I don't have a vice chair, and I would like to wait and talk to members of the committee to see what the general sense of who might be a good vice chair is. That's okay. Okay. Next item on the agenda is approval of the summary. And are there any corrections for the summary? Move approval, Mr. Chairman. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Next item is the Parks Master Plan. Commissioner, welcome. Thank you. to our world about parks and those experienced members on the committee. When we debated how to characterize this presentation, we didn't want it to be regurgitation or reiteration of this huge, big parks master plan. We wanted it to be the beginning of a conversation, the basis of a dialogue of where we go in the near future, the near term, and thoughts for the future. You all know what your constituents need and want and can tell us if we're on the right track or we need a course correction. And every now and then, we, like everybody, need a little course correction. With Parks and Recreation, we have, I'm always just amazed every time I do these presentations, to think about the size of the operation at Parks. We have over 100 parks and 100 facilities. It's three times the size of the Kentucky Horse Park. 66 ball fields, playgrounds, we've got 80 tennis courts, 112 athletic fields, and 69% of our residents visit those parks once a month. The division has a $15 million plus budget, 154 full-time employees, and then 800 plus seasonal employees. It's divided into three sections, recreation, enterprise, maintenance, planning, and design. Recreation. Recreation just includes numerous activities and programs. If you look at this slide today, you can see that it delivers year-round opportunities for the entire community. Just look at it. It goes through everything from athletics to cultural arts to summer camp to seniors in therapeutic recreation and serves numerous people. If you look at the recreation events that were held in 2012, again you see the diversity of that. You run from ballet under the stars to thriller. The short-term projects that we see for recreation, we think that we need to meet the changing demands in athletics and extreme sports. We'd like to build out those Shilato multi-use fields, create extreme sports family facilities with archery, rope challenges, climbing walls, bike pump trails, new things that people want today. We want to repurpose our underused tennis courts into skate spots, and I never can pronounce that next word correctly, so I'll just call it speed soccer areas. We want to meet the growing needs, fitness needs of our community. We need to complete those park trails at Masterson and Jacobson and create outdoor gyms and fit spots in local parks. We need to meet community programming needs of all ages. We want to consider in the next couple of years the repurposing of Carver into an arts, culture, and education center with emphasis on arts programming for all ages. Locate additional facilities for our top performing summer programs. We sell out these programs in about 15 minutes, and if we had the facility to offer more, we would be able to serve a lot more people. There's a tremendous competition and need for those programs. We'd like to complete the Wellington Park Sensory Garden and Pedestrian Bridge and extend the very successful I Do initiatives using summer dollars. The vision for the future and the longer-term projects ahead are to look at some very extensive outdoor gyms in our larger parks. This seems, from our research, this seems to be one of the up-and-coming things, that there are truly big gyms in these outdoor parks. We need to look at that concept. Our community centers are in pretty bad shape, and we need to make those more of a contemporary community center. Look at our innovative type projects, like the skate park. Enterprise. Enterprise, that section includes a lot of things that we've discussed in the last year and a half. Golf, aquatics, concessions, extended school program, rentals. The aquatics. There we operate four aquatic centers, three neighborhood pools, a marina, 16 paddle boats, and four decorative fountains in the downtown area. We gave you all numbers back in October of our aquatics, of how we thought we did in aquatics. We improved over 11. We had more people attended, swim in our pools. We had increased revenue. We decreased our expenses. The subsidy is still almost $500,000. As you'll see, it's $488,726, so let's call it $490,000. So the subsidy is lowered, but it's still a significant subsidy. But here's a slide I really want to look at, and that's aquatics today. In 2000, Lexington's Pools had 288,000 patrons. Today, there's 100,000 fewer patrons than that, which I was just, when we went over this report, I was just sort of taken back by that. I did not, it just had somehow escaped my scope. We wondered why, and we certainly don't have all the answers for that why. But some of the reasons are you have three new aquatic centers, and they're just miles away in other counties, and they're equipped with all the new play features, the interactivity, the thrills that people, especially young people, like in these pools. Our pools have a very dated and tired look. They lack spray features, big slides, and climbing walls. We have some short-term projects in mind. We feel that we need to attract families. Play features, we need to replace our alligators, our swans, our slides at Woodland and Southland. We need to add shade structures at Shillitoe, Piccadone, Castlewood, and Woodland. People that just have to lay on the concrete and there is nothing else around those pools, they don't come to those pools. We need to increase the paddleboat fleet and the experience of that, and we feel we need to add an East End splash pad. Now, that doesn't mean that splash pad couldn't be at numerous places in Lexington, but we think it would be good in the East End. We need to update concessions at Castlewood, enlarge that baby pool at Shillitoe, and expand the Better Bites program. To attract teenagers, we need to add some climbing walls at Castlewood, Douglas, Shillitoe, and Woodland. And to attract seniors who come in droves to our Picadome Park pool, we need to reduce the pool depth and remodel the restrooms at Picadome. now long-term vision we've talked a lot and about just a lot internally about indoor aquatic centers and you know everybody has one and you sort of get when you don't have one you think I have one everybody else does and there's a lot of indoor aquatic centers there's some quite a few around us and of course there's a lot throughout the country which do a lot of They have a lot of recreational and competitive swimming in them, and they do that for fitness, therapy, and fun. I think that we would like, over the course of the year, to sort of give you some data and some information on these. We don't know if that's the way that Lexington should go, if we should invest in an aquatic center. We'd like to present some facts to you all and generate a discussion and see how people feel on that, because we certainly don't know the answer. That is a major expense. And whether Lexington wants to head in that direction or wants to build something else and sort of focus on something else, I think needs to be a subject of conversation with the administration and council. golf those of you who've been with us for the last year and a half have helped us so much with golf and you have really i think that the council questions and we told the newspaper this too the council questions that we were asked on golf really helped us focus it made us look at golf It made us think about golf. Mike Fields has spent his time trying to increase revenue, trying to decrease cost. You gave us the flexibility in golf that we really needed, and that flexibility was the ability to turn on a dime and adjust to the market in setting our rates, and that really helped us. And I keep looking over here all the time because Council Member McCord was right on the push that he gave us. He really did make this better, and we all agree with that. The achievements we had in golf were we lowered that subsidy tremendously. As you can see, it was $574,000, almost $575,000. It still is $575,000. So that is the subsidy that it's taking to run these golf courses. Our short-term projects for golf is we need to eventually replace the lakeside golf irrigation system. That is very old, very leaky, and we think we could probably save a lot of money in the long term by replacing that. The thing that we need to do out at Kearney to make it really top-notch for tournaments or so is we need to restore those bunkers to more terminate quality bunkers. And then upgrade kitchens at Lakeside, Kearney, Tate's Creek, and develop golf tour packages by working with Commerce Kentucky, Lexington, and the Kentucky Department of Tourism. Our long-term look at golf needs to be to continuously monitor the usage and the participation at these golf courses. We need to evaluate the demand for golf every year. We have only shown you a figure from a six-month and a year's worth of golf. We need to keep coming back to you to show you for the next year or so what is happening out there on those golf courses. Did we hit a blip of just wonderful weather last year? Have a lot of our things that we have done really made the change that are permanent? We will keep coming back to you with numbers so that you can continuously assess our goth and advise us on things that you think would make it better. Maintenance. Maintenance is one of those things that is certainly not very sexy. But it is the heart and soul of that park system. It's the things that you all get those calls about all the time. Because I'm always shocked at how many people really are out there looking at big, tall grass in those parks. And they call. And we maintain over 100 parks, 100 facilities, and 4,300 acres. we've achieved a lot in maintenance we have mowed a tremendous amount we're out on a lot of contract maintenance we have supported 157 special events we've reduced expenditures a great deal by outsourcing but we've got some short term projects that we need to look at in maintenance we feel that we need to improve that Phoenix Park downtown and we're calling that a heavy maintenance type project. It is not a project, and we have worked with Council Member Lawless on this too, it is not a project that ever would displace the homeless, and we don't want ever to describe it like that. What we want to do is make some changes, some heavy maintenance. That park hadn't been touched since it was first built, to make some heavy maintenance things down there that doesn't shove anybody out but invites more people in. And I think those are the words that Council Member Lawless has asked us to sort of keep in mind as we look at this park. So we hope that's going to be one of our big things for this coming year. We'll probably need to establish a downtown maintenance district and dedicate a crew to the beautification of downtown. And that's over in parks because we've got those tree wells, we have got the rain gardens, and we have got a lot of baskets. And all of that is very staff intensive. We also, if you look through there, we need to create greenway and trail maintenance crews to preserve the beauty of our landscape. And this also will cut down on our mowing. And we've got some other things that we want to look at with the replacement of our equipment and leasing versus purchasing some of our equipment. Now, to wrap up, that Parks Master Plan in 2009, it had numerous recommendations across all divisions. It was $50 million for this, $2 million for this, $3 million for that. A hundred and twenty-five specific recommendations. Many of those we've already adopted. And we had approximately $80 million of redevelopment and new facility needs that came from the 98 Master Plan. There's been a lot of shifts in dollars, demographics, and trends that promote an entirely rethink of that master plan and what we thought we were going to do. We want to create a focused philanthropy effort through a conservancy in partnership with community leaders. We need to raise some private funds. And if we're going to raise private funds, we need to make sure that we have good projects that we're raising these private funds for. We can't just ask people to just give without good long-term projects. We need to develop guidelines and standards to promote and increase sponsorship and address naming rights. If you remember, we had this issue the last council meeting, and we are now going over a policy for donations and naming rights that we will discuss with the administration and then discuss with the council. I've already seen a couple of drafts on this. The national accreditation, that is a lot of work. To do that national accreditation takes a great deal of time from parks. But we feel, and many of you have asked us this question, that we need to continue with that national accreditation. That if we're going to go out and raise money for parks, people need to know that we are doing best practices. And you need somebody else to put that stamp of total approval on that. So we are going, Jerry is working on that. We are going to have the first reaccreditation site visit in May, so we are going to continue with having that accreditation. There's only 109 of 3,000 agencies that have those. And I think it's important if we're going to go to the public and ask for money. Now, what we've tried to do is give you a look at what we think are our good short-term projects or investments to improve the park experience. There are a lot of improvements that can be made with millions of dollars. We don't have that, but we don't want to sit back and wring our hands and do nothing just waiting on $5, $10 million from the council. That's not going to happen that we see in the immediate future. So we need to move forward and have ideas for improvement at any amount of money, at a smaller amount of money. Do you saw all those pool improvements that we were talking about? They are not huge amounts of money. You will see those come in. You'll see a lot of these projects come in in our capital improvement plans. we can do a lot in our pools without draining the bank. So what we've tried to do is show you some near-term efforts that we'd like to take and sort of discuss these with you as we go down the road this year and through the budget process. So thank you very much. Thank you. I have a few people lined up with either questions or comments. Councilmember Wallace. Thank you, Commissioner Hamilton. And I want to applaud you for the outstanding job you've done and the park staff. It's been a pleasure. So one question I have and one of the things I brought up some time ago is there are a lot of opportunities out there for grants, like the Kaboom Fund City designation. There's only one community in Kentucky that has that. A lot of that work to do that has been done. In the upcoming budget, do you foresee asking for a grant writer position? And thank you for mentioning it because I think I skipped right over it. I had it in there in the thing that we would like and appreciate that, that we would like there to be a grant writer, a development opportunities person. When you see this naming policy, and as I said, we've done a couple of drafts of it. When you see this naming policy, donations policy, I think you'll take a look at this and see, is it just a park? We've written it like parks, but is it just a parks issue? or is it all across the government? And when you look at this, I wrote, when we did this, we talked about a person in parks. I'm not sure that's where that person ought to be. I think you'll need to think about it and look at this policy, if it's broader than that, if there's somebody that should be in charge of naming donations at other parts of government also. But we do need somebody, yes, for grants. I would think that with the needs that we have, having a development grant writer person would be a tremendous investment. I think it would be true. Thank you. It would be true. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Next, Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your report. and I want to thank you for all your hard work, particularly with the Gulf and Mike Fields and all of those who worked on it, because I think the report reflects what really hard, detailed looking at a situation can do in terms of changing it. And this is very encouraging. Now, one of the things that I wanted to ask you, and I'm remembering at a state parks conference a few years ago, some of the parks, divisions of parks across Kentucky, were starting a concentrated effort of using volunteers. And particularly, I look here on slide 22, the Create a Greenway Trail Maintenance Cruise to Preserve the Beauty of Our Landscape. we have a lot of natural areas I'm thinking of the Arboretum which totally exists on volunteer I mean not totally they have a maintenance person but they do a lot of their work through volunteers we have Boy Scout groups doing eagle projects all over our community And I wondered if you had thought about forming a serious group or taking a serious look at how we could use our citizens in some of the areas that have less liability associated with them to help us with some of these maintenance, maintenance of trails and maintenance of greenways, where it's a matter of not using machinery necessarily, but the old-fashioned kind of maintenance. I think that's a great idea. And, no, we have not looked at this idea across parks at various places. Now, I'll tell you where we did have a discussion with this, and Council Member Kaye was there, I think, When we talked to, we had conversations with Susan Bush, and this was involving our trees. You know, the article that was written and the study that was about our contract mowing, you know, that wasn't about our contract mowing, but that we were damaging these trees, and there was no doubt about that. And we had a conversation there with the appropriateness or the viability of using volunteers in our parks to maybe identify some of these trees that needed protection or so, but not using volunteers like you're describing. But I think that's a good idea and one we need to pursue. And I would suggest looking at some other, maybe. Yeah, we'll do that. Maybe the parks folks already know of communities that are doing that, but there are a lot of things that could be done that don't involve high liability risk. I think that's a good key. And a lot of our citizens are looking for volunteer opportunities where it would make a difference. And I think there could be some things in here that would offer a chance for us to do that. Thank you. That's a great idea. Thank you, and I appreciate all of your work, Jerry and Brian and Mike and your whole team. So thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this presentation. It's eye-opening, especially the $50 million part. And that's part of my first question. Have you all talked to finance about limits on bonding and where we are as far as capacity is concerned? It seems silly to knock yourself out if we can't do it. We have not talked to finance yet, but I'm getting ready to have those conversations of if there's any possibility, what the room is left in the bond thing. Okay, second thing, which is really a ticky-tack, but last summer was the hottest summer in history. That has to influence both pools and golf courses, and probably tennis too, except tennis is not up for conjecture at this point. But the year before, we had the wettest. Is there some way we could log, and somebody's going to have to take the responsibility for doing it, log what the weather is on a daily basis so that we know that these dollars that change and move back and forth have a little bit better feeling for where we are on some kind of baseline level and bring it to a baseline level. And we can do the other two, but it would be interesting to know ongoing exactly what the situation is and what the public, how it reacts to weather, I guess, is really what I'm thinking. I think your comment and question is a great one because it really has influenced our money. You know, last year when we talked about golf, the worry was that we had such a great winner. Remember that it was going to be a blip and that we had to be real careful not to get carried away with revenue because it could be a blip. Well, we come into it and we have a great year. It just does great. We come into July because I've seen the July. We saw six months. Mike and Jerry and I took a look at six months' worth of revenue over there. And we're getting ready to really look into the expenditures now. Six months' worth of revenue over in the golf courses. That heat running that July, that first two weeks of July, just cleared those golf courses. They did. And you can watch that weather, and we can compare it, because it really made a difference to the volume of the play. When we got to the parks, I mean, when we got to the pools, what happened with that summer weather is that weather got over 90, and that's when we opened those pools to be free. So that affects people coming, but it also affects the revenue. So you're exactly right, Council Member Beer. We can and we are watching those weather blips. Because Mike had told me the other day that he had, after seeing July and some of that heat, some ideas, more ideas of how to work with those very sort of blips in weather and drive more play. Because you're right, it's weather related. And we will watch it and show you some of those trends. Okay. It probably could influence your staffing here also, I would think. And it also influences, of course, how much water we threw out there on those golf courses during that July period. Well, golfers like a nice hard surface to hit the ball on, so it'll roll that extra 50 or 60 yards. And last summer was probably a good example of that. Thank you very much, Commissioner. It is great. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Hi, Sally. I was just wondering if you all have performed an audit of potentials for income or making sure that we're maximizing those, like with the youth activities and special events, as well as field rentals. I know that some of the properties that we own are rented to other leagues, and so are all of the fields utilized? Are there fields we could be using or renting more, and how much money, you know, what are all of our revenues, and have we maximized those? Okay. I'm going to answer this question, and then I'm going to answer it to Jerry. I do not think we have done a formal assessment of that. And I'm going to let Jerry address, but I also want to comment that shortly before I came into this meeting, Council Member Akers sent me a list of questions that were just excellent. and we will answer them and send them out to everyone. I told her, I said, well, it sort of makes me tremble when I come in here and couldn't answer any of them. But we will answer those and send them to everybody. Do you want to address? Excuse me. Thank you, Sally. Anyway, Council Member, one thing we do in parks is follow a council-approved fees and charges policy, which was set eight, ten years ago, perhaps, in which we categorize each of our fee-based events into whether or not they're child-based, in which case our policy is to try and generate half or more of the direct costs of that activity, all the way up to for-profit events or private events, such as a wedding, which is totally private and doesn't benefit the public, in which case we like to make a profit. We like to cover all of our fixed and variable costs and then add something to it. And then there are a number of things that fall in between those two. So we follow that policy, and on an annual basis, Brian Rogers, our Deputy Director of Enterprise, presents to the Parks Advisory Board a review of our fees and charges and seeks input or recommendations on whether we should change, alter those particular prices, in which case we would come here. We've not done that on a regular basis. It was felt by some that we were doing that too often, and we need to perhaps seek your advice on who, if not yourselves, ought to review those fees and charges like golf is now reviewed by the chief administrative officer. If we want to raise $3 on a picnic shelter rental or an extra dollar for a swim lesson, do we need to come here and have that conversation? So our fee review is not as regular and immediate as it ought to be, but it does take place periodically within a policy that you all have approved. Thank you. Thank you. Any other council members? I'll just add briefly my comment. I don't have any further questions, but I appreciate the work that's been done. It's been something that I've been interested in having Parks work on, and I think that the progress you've made is really encouraging. I'm also encouraged that what we'll now get is kind of an ongoing work on the planning process so that the Council is prized of what the best thinking is and we can help you make judgments about the budget and what needs to happen going forward. So thank you very much. Thank you to everybody. Next item on the agenda is the Metro Employees Credit Union, which that presentation has been postponed, I gather. Just a comment about what it is. To explain to you why that presentation has been postponed, to those of you who are new on the Council, we have been going over the rent for the two credit union locations. What had been asked for was a public service agreement between the credit union and LFUCG, since there has never been one, and to go along with this rental agreement. That has to be done in finance, and the finance commissioner has absolutely worked. Left us. She's left us, but she has worked herself to death right up to the last minute. I mean, she was eating a piece of cake and doing something. So she just did not have time to do this. We will get this done. I feel real good about this. I had a conversation with the director of the credit union who was ready to proceed with the lease as long as we had a PSA to go with it. So we hope that next month we can bring you something really final. Okay, so we'll just leave this on the agenda. Yes, please. Thank you very much. The next item is the amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules. Ms. George, you're going to provide us with background and information, I hope. Good morning. If you all recall, at the November meeting, we talked about a way to give the mayor authority to approve certain categories of documents, yet giving the council the ability to be able to review those documents prior to the mayor executing them. And at the November meeting, I requested that you all give me an opportunity to draft some legislation for us to review and go through, and that's what you have before you today. So if you will look at the draft, and also I did want to point out, in the minutes, it talks about the amendment to the council rules being 3.101, and that's the section that we were amending originally. but once we decided to make some changes and for me to come back and amend something relating to work session, that's why it's now 4.104, so I wanted to explain the difference in the section numbers and why it's different than what is in the minutes. If you will look under 4.104 in your packet, under Section A, what we've done is included this section called Legislative Review. Is everyone with me? Does everyone see what I am? Okay. We've included a section called Legislative Review. And if you go to Subsection 8, it explains what that is. So the list of all of the different categories of documents that we have been talking about previously is still included here. And then at the end, sorry, if you go to Section G, Excuse me, I think my page is maybe out of order here. At the end of Section H, I'm sorry, it talks about the process of how this would work. So at work session, under legislative review, there would be a list of documents. Say, for example, if there were easements that the mayor was going to execute or grant agreements, price contracts, they would show up on the work session agenda under the section called Legislative Review. And at that time, the council would have the opportunity to look at each of those items, and you can take one of the following actions that's listed here. It could be referred to a committee. It could be referred back to the administration. It could just be removed from the list or no action taken. And if the council takes no action at the work session, then at the end of the meeting the mayor would have the authority to go ahead and execute those documents. And that's how this new process would work. It's a little different than what we talked about before. If you recall, we were looking at whether or not we could do the consent agenda concept. And what we talked about at the November meeting was that's really not any different than what we do now. It's just called something different because we were looking at doing something like Louisville. But as I explained in the November meeting, what Louisville does, all ordinances or resolutions still receive two readings. And I think what we were trying to do was to identify categories of documents that would no longer have to appear before the council at a Thursday night meeting and receive two readings. And this process is outlined here in this amendment. And hopefully that explains it. And if you all have any questions. Thank you. Commissioner, I'm sorry, Council Member Lawless. With this, we've been talking about this, I think, since I first came on council. Actually, Council Member Lawless, I looked today and I first received this assignment on March the 17th of 2009. Yeah. So that's how long we've been working on this. And one of the things that, one of the issues in all of this was expediency, number one, and number two, not having to advertise in the paper these things like that really didn't need to be. and we got, you know, you researched and there was no requirement to do that if we changed our ordinances and policies. So would this solve some of the advertising issues? Well, when we first started looking at this, you are correct. One of the things we were looking at was a way to cut costs because at the time we did have to publish all ordinances and resolutions in the paper. Since that time, the General Assembly has passed legislation, and we're no longer required to publish resolutions in the paper. We only do ordinances. So the General Assembly corrected one of the problems that we had when this first came to you all in 2009. Yeah, because we were the only community under state law that had to do that. Right. The other thing I wanted to, I'm wondering, is when these things come before us at work session, would we be able to debate and vote on them if there was something that we, because it's not really an official meeting of the council, therefore it would. You would be able to talk about them, but there wouldn't be a vote. Would there be the ability for the council to debate it and then place it on the agenda for Thursday night? Yes. If we at that time could vote? Yes, we could still do that. Okay. And just one more quick thing. On the price contracts, could you say a little more about that? Such as? Well, I mean, I understand that the state has price contracts with certain companies, et cetera, and we fall under theirs. We may have our own. Does this mean that what's the change there? Well, originally price contracts weren't on this list. But in reviewing things that could come to you all that you could just review at work session without us having to put it on for Thursday night, we added price contracts. Now, if you have any questions about how that all works, Todd is here to answer questions about the mechanics of a price contract. Okay. I just wondered why that was on that list. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions and a couple comments. And one of the ways I'm looking at this is through the lens of the original thinking in the Charter, which was that the reason things got read publicly was to inform the public. So if these items on the legislative review list come to the work session and do not get read on a Thursday night, how do they become part of the permanent official record? Or do they not? I don't know that they would be a part of the permitted official record because they aren't being voted on or considered at an official meeting of the council, which would occur on a Thursday. So any items on that list would not become part of the official record of the council? Other than they would be in the minutes of the work session, but they would not be in the official records of the council, no. Yes, because the clerk's office only keeps the official council meeting records. Correct. Okay. Now, on H, item A, where it says execution of deeds and easements for multi-use trails projects, dorm and sanitary sewer projects, and roadway construction projects, when the projects have received council approval, Does that mean after the projects have received council approval? Correct. Say, for example, the Citation Boulevard project. You know, the council has already approved the funding for that project. So then what would happen is as we start executing deeds and easements, you wouldn't see those anymore. And in all actuality, it's kind of how it works now. Now, we used to put every deed and easement on there, but now we just do one resolution that says authorizing the mayor to execute all deeds for a particular project. So to be clear, could we substitute the word after instead of when? When is, I think, very unclear. Yes. Okay. In item B, is there a reason that the same $19,999 figure was not used as it is in item C for professional services contracts? I'm going to have to defer to Todd, but I think this amount is $20,000, and I could have put it in there incorrectly. But, I mean, the council can. It's $20,000. But do you want? Well, my question is, in item C, professional services contracts are not to exceed $19,999. Why would you not use the same number in item B for continuity? So that anything $20,000 and over receives council approval. That's correct. I don't know if we need to vote on all these changes, but it just makes common sense to use the same number. so that there's not confusion. So that's doable, Todd? Okay. That's exactly right. Okay. And then in item, well, I'm not sure if it's item I, on the next page where it says the Urban County Council may review and discuss each item, et cetera, et cetera, when it says may review, that then is a choice, correct? It's not shall review. Would you like to change that to shall? Well, I think if it's on the work session agenda, I would like to be sure council had to review it. Okay. And if it's may review, then it's optional, and I think that's not particularly a good idea. So I think shall would be more appropriate. And then just finally, I have a comment about G at the top of that last page. I think that the public, I think it should be public record that change orders are made, and I am not supportive of item G at all. Item G says that any execution of change orders on contracts which do not exceed 10% of the original contract price or $25,000 go on this list, and that means that the public, it will never be part of the public record, and I just wanted to say for the minutes I'm opposed to item G because I think that should be part of the public record when it's taxpayer dollars that we're spending for those change orders. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, let me say I do agree with the vice mayor. Change orders are problematic because they're just change orders, and I think they need to be looked at very carefully. I don't know how we want to approach that, but I would agree with her we need to address that one. The other area is price contracts, and my question on that, if we don't approve a price contract, it's only for information only, and then if an order or purchase under that contract came forward, then we would approve it at that time. Would that be the way that would be handled? For example, if we said copy paper is going to be $10 a ream and we ordered 1,000 reams, $10,000, that would come before council for approval? It would not? It would not. Okay. Well, I would have a little bit of a question about that one also. Okay. So the other question I had is in order for this to be on the docket of the council meeting, could not this information also be put onto the docket as a communication from the mayor's office or the CAO or whomever you want to? So when we file the docket on the Internet where anybody can go look at it, that all this information would be permanently there, would be easy to find, whereas if it's just on a work session, it might be more problematic to get that information. That's a good point, and yes, we could do that. And I think the vice mayor would address your issue about it becoming a part of the record. It could show up as communications from the mayor, and it would be at the end of a council meeting agenda. But we would not have to read the item. Just like communications from the mayor, we don't read those. And the issue there is to spend a lot of time reading things that are very minor changes and things. It's not a good time, a waste of time, I think, for council and our administrative people. All right, the other question I have, the very last sentence says, if no action is taken, then the items listed for legislative review are approved. And that infers that the council has approved that when, in essence, we're not approving it. And I believe that it would be better to take out or approve it out and maybe make it read, if no action is taken on the items by council, then the mayor, under his authorities, may execute said agreements or something like that. Okay. Because I don't think we're making an approval. and we were just reviewing an action proposed by the mayor. Those were some of the thoughts I had. As you know, I have worked on this some myself, and the idea was to expedite some of the meeting time to eliminate reading a lot of things, taking a lot of time where we could be discussing the construction of the $600 million sanitary sewer upgrades or improving our accounting system, some of the issues that are really significant and important to the community and the government, rather than reading that we've got a, you know, getting a load of dirt from somebody for free. So I hope that we can make this move forward. And I believe that once we get started,