# Urban County Council Work Session - March 5, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 5, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2901 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2901?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-03-05 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 14,829 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 Urban County Council met on March 5, 2013, at 3:03 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center in Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Mayor Jim Gray presided over the meeting. The council addressed 10 agenda items, including public comment periods, requested rezonings and docket approvals, budget amendments, new and continuing business, council reports, and the mayor's report. The council took 16 motions and votes during the session and heard 6 public comments from members of the community. Most substantive agenda items were approved, including the requested rezonings and docket approvals, budget amendments, new business items, and continuing business and presentations. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 5, 2013: - Linda Gorton - Chuck Ellinger - Steve Kay - Chris Ford - Shevawn Akers - Diane Lawless - Julian Beard - Bill Farmer Jr. - George Myers - Kevin Stinnett - Jennifer Scutchfield - Jennifer Mossotti - Harry Clarke - Peggy Henson - Ed Lane No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions All motions during this meeting were decided by voice vote and passed unanimously. **Docket Additions** [timestamp: 00:06:23] The council voted to add three items to the docket for the February 28th, 2013 Council meeting without public hearings: - A motion by Diane Lawless, seconded by Chuck Ellinger, to add an ordinance changing the zone from wholesale and warehouse business to Lexington Center Business zone for 0.057 net acres at 430 West Maxwell Street. - A motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Linda Gorton, to add an ordinance changing the zone from Two Family Residential to High Density Apartment zone for 0.144 acres at 1577 Martha Court. - A motion by Shevawn Akers, seconded by Bill Farmer Jr., to add an ordinance creating sections 15-11.1 through 15-11.4 of the Code of Ordinances to regulate mobile food truck vendors. **Resolutions and Professional Services** [timestamp: 00:06:23] The council approved three resolutions for the February 28th docket: - A motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Diane Lawless, to place a resolution expressing support for a Kentucky constitutional amendment to grant automatic restoration of voting rights to persons convicted of felonies (excluding treason, intentional killing, sex crimes, and bribery) after expiration of probation or sentence. - A motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Steve Kay, to accept Dr. Ryan Stanton's response to RFP No. 1-2013 for Medical Director Services and authorize the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement. - A motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Jennifer Mossotti, to authorize advertisement for bids and distribution of a preliminary official statement for Various Purpose General Obligation Bond Series 2013A (not to exceed $14 million) and Various Purpose Obligation Refunding Bonds Series 2013B (not to exceed $10 million). **Administrative Approvals** [timestamp: 00:06:55 - 00:13:58] The council approved the summary, budget amendments, and new business. A motion by Linda Gorton, seconded by Bill Farmer Jr., amended the budget amendment list to remove budget journal 65452 relating to Division of Fire overtime. **Other Actions** [timestamp: 00:32:36 - 01:40:39] The council approved the Neighborhood Development Funds list and Planning and Public Works minutes as amended. A motion by Chuck Ellinger, seconded by Kevin Stinnett, rescheduled a special meeting to March 12th at 6 o'clock. A motion by Peggy Henson, seconded by Steve Kay, canceled the hearing on the 12th. A motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Peggy Henson, placed a review of the exaction program into the planning committee. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 01:44:59] A motion by Kevin Stinnett, seconded by Bill Farmer Jr., to adjourn passed. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting authorized nine financial and budgetary actions: **Professional Services Contracts** - **L0172-13**: Authorization to execute Professional Service Agreements with seven forensic examiners—Carrie Barnett, Susan Noel, Susanna Moberly, Angela Wallace, Rosemary Dailey, Brigette Holleran, and Victory Nash—to serve on an on-call basis for forensic examinations under the 2013 SANE grant program for FY 2013. Amount: $60,530. - **L0176-13**: Authorization to execute an agreement with Risk Management Services Co. to provide automobile physical damage and property damage claims adjusting, including subrogation services from February 1, 2013 to June 30, 2016. Amount: $23,000. - **L0200-13**: Authorization to execute Addendum No. 1 to an agreement with Rave Wireless, Inc. to provide "SmartPrepare" software, training, and implementation services for an Emergency Management self-registration portal. Amount: $25,000. - **L0202-13**: Authorization to execute a Continuing Services Agreement with Lifespan Design Studio for evaluation of two additional sites for a new Lexington Senior Center. Amount: $9,425. **Organizational and Planning Amendments** - **L0190-13**: Authorization to adopt the Lexington Fayette Hazard Mitigation Plan as required by FEMA. No budgetary impact. - **L0192-13**: Authorization to adopt the Lexington Fayette Emergency Operations Plan as required by KRS 39B.030(2). No budgetary impact. - **L0201-13**: Authorization to amend Sections 21-5 and 22-5 of the Code of Ordinances, abolishing one Social Worker Sr. position (Grade 113E) and creating one CASA Services Manager position (Grade 116E) in the Division of Youth Services. Savings: $442.77 for FY2013 (6 pay periods). - **L0207-13**: Authorization to amend Resolution No. 288-2011 to include the affiliates of Tempur-Pedic International Inc. No budgetary impact. - **L208-13**: Authorization to repeal Ordinance 252-2009 to dissolve the Showprop Lexington Development Area and Incremental Tax Special Fund. No budgetary impact. ## Public Comment Several speakers addressed the council with reports and requests during this meeting. **Economic Development Report** [timestamp: 00:33:14] Julian Beard reported on the February 19th Economic Development Committee meeting. He highlighted significant economic activity in 2012, including the creation of 50 high-tech jobs and capital investment exceeding $137 million. The committee also unanimously approved a draft ordinance for a food truck work group. **Budget and Finance Report** [timestamp: 00:38:10] Chuck Ellinger reported on the February 19th Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Discussion topics included the Homeless Commission report and monthly financials. Ellinger noted the need for a comprehensive funding approach to address identified issues. The meeting concluded early due to time constraints. **Financial Efficiency Ordinance** [timestamp: 00:41:30] Ed Lane presented a proposal for a Financial Efficiency Ordinance designed to improve cost accounting, oversight of capital projects, and independent evaluations. The proposal emphasized proactive cost savings and accountability measures. **Health Care and Housing Funding** [timestamp: 01:38:25] Kevin Stinnett requested a presentation on how the Affordable Health Care Act would impact the city's health plan. He also asked whether Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds could be used to advance affordable housing initiatives. **Confirmation Hearing Announcement** [timestamp: 01:42:49] Peggy Henson announced a scheduled confirmation hearing for Bill O'Mara for the position of commissioner of finance. The hearing is set for Thursday, March 7th at 3:45 p.m. **Community Event Recognition** [timestamp: 01:43:23] Jennifer Henson shared positive remarks about the Dr. Seuss birthday celebration held at the Family Care Center, describing it as one of the most enjoyable events she has attended. ## Appointments Bill O'Mara was appointed Commissioner of Finance. ## Contested Items The March 5, 2013 meeting included three areas of significant disagreement among council members. **Financial Efficiency Ordinance** The proposal for a Financial Efficiency Ordinance generated heated discussion. Council members debated the cost and feasibility of the ordinance, with particular concern about whether internal improvements could achieve the same results without hiring external consultants. Members raised concerns about potential duplication of services and questioned the financial burden of third-party oversight. **Senior Center Site Evaluation** Council members were divided on a $9,425 expenditure for evaluating two additional sites for a new senior center. The split vote reflected disagreement over the cost of the study and whether the evaluation would provide sufficient value to justify the expense. **Zoning Hearing Rescheduling** A procedural dispute emerged regarding the scheduling of a zoning hearing. The hearing could not be held on March 12th or 13th due to lack of quorum and advertising requirements. This procedural conflict resulted in the cancellation of the meeting. ## Public Comment Issues on Agenda No public comment was received on issues on the agenda. [timestamp: 00:01:00] ## Requested Rezonings / Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:06:23] Several motions were made during this agenda item to add zoning changes and other items to the docket for the February 28th Council meeting. The key speakers involved in this discussion included Diane Lawless, Kevin Stinnett, Linda Gorton, Jennifer Mossotti, Shevawn Akers, and Bill Farmer Jr. All motions presented during this agenda item passed without dissent, resulting in the approval of the requested rezonings and docket additions. ## Approval of Summary The Council considered approval of the work session summary during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:06:55] **Key Speakers:** - Julian Beard - Linda Gorton - Peggy Henson **Discussion and Outcome:** The work session summary was presented for approval. During the discussion, Council Member Ford noted a minor correction regarding the motion's seconding. Following this clarification, the summary was approved. ## Budget Amendments The council approved budget amendments during this agenda item. [timestamp: 00:08:01] The amendments included a motion to remove a journal related to Division of Fire overtime. The discussion also addressed fund transfers and utility billing adjustments. Key speakers on this item included Bill Farmer Jr., Linda Gorton, Bill O'Mara, and Peggy Henson. The budget amendments were approved by the council. ## New Business The new business items, which included the adoption of hazard mitigation and emergency operations plans, were presented for consideration [timestamp: 00:13:58]. The discussion involved multiple speakers including Kevin Stinnett, Peggy Henson, Chuck Ellinger, Julian Beard, Steve Kay, Bill Farmer Jr., George Myers, and Ed Lane. During the discussion, participants addressed several key considerations regarding the proposed plans. The primary topics of debate centered on cost, scope, and feasibility of the hazard mitigation and emergency operations plans under consideration. Following the discussion of these factors, the new business items were approved by the body. ## Continuing Business / Presentations [timestamp: 00:33:14] During this agenda item, the meeting included presentations from multiple committees and a detailed discussion of proposed financial policy changes. **Presentations Delivered** The Economic Development Committee provided a summary of its activities and initiatives. The Budget and Finance Committee delivered a report on financial matters under their purview. A comprehensive presentation on the Financial Efficiency Ordinance was also delivered, which prompted extensive discussion among attendees. **Key Speakers** The following individuals participated in the presentations and discussions: Julian Beard, Chuck Ellinger, Ed Lane, Peggy Henson, Bill O'Mara, and Charlie Martin. **Outcome** The agenda item was approved. ## Council Reports Council reports were presented during this portion of the meeting, beginning at approximately [timestamp: 00:33:14]. **Presenters and Content** Reports were delivered by Julian Beard and Chuck Ellinger covering activities from two committees: - Economic Development Committee - Budget and Finance Committee **Outcome** The reports were presented for informational purposes. No further action was taken on the items discussed. ## Mayor's Report The Mayor's Report was presented by Chuck Ellinger [timestamp: 01:44:27]. The report was approved without discussion. ## Public Comment – Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 01:44:27] No public comment was received on issues not on the agenda. Mr. Mundy reported this informational update to the body. ## Adjournment A motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed. [timestamp: 01:44:59] The motion was presented by Kevin Stinnett and Chuck Ellinger, and was approved, concluding the proceedings. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): schedule a Special Council Meeting on March 12th, 2013 at 6:00pm - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Docket for the March 7th, 2013 Council Meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the amended February 26th, 2013 Work Session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the new business items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Neighborhood Development Funds list - **Motion** — passed (0-0): cancel the Special Council Meeting scheduled for March 12th, 2013 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer a review of the LFUCG’s Exaction Program into the Planning and Public Works Committee, specifically how rates are set as well as the accounting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor’s Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Okay. Greetings, everyone. Welcome to the meeting of the work session. And first on our agenda is a public comment. Mr. Mundy, has anybody signed up for public comment? All right, sir. Thank you so much. And next on our agenda is not noted on the agenda. This is an item that's just surfaced regarding the hearing that was scheduled for tonight, and I'll ask the Vice Mayor to bring you all up on details. And Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate that. And I'm going to ask Council Member Ellinger to give details. Since he was going to be chairing the meeting tonight, basically we have a question of whether there's going to be a quorum. So, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We have received... Can you hear me? Hang on. Can you hear me? We have received seven council members who said they will not be here tonight, so we will not have a quorum. So we're going to have to look at rescheduling. We have some notification deadlines that we need to meet with the Herald leader. So we need to do this beginning of the meeting. And we need to look at rescheduling next Tuesday, I guess, would be the first option at 6 o'clock. And is there anybody who would not be available to meet for that day? And this would be for the ND1 special meeting on the 12th. And the deadline would be the 13th. That has to be heard by. All right. Well, let's go. Who can be here? Let's raise our hands. Who can? Who can? on the 12th at 6 o'clock. We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Here, right, let's do that again. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Part of the dilemma is we have council members who are absent, and we don't know if they can be here or not. I have an association meeting, but I think this time I made it to 10. for the 12th at 6 o'clock. Do we need a motion for that, Vice Mayor? For the new... I'll make a motion that we have a special meeting for the 12th of March at 6 o'clock. And I guess we'll need some input as soon as we can from the clerk as to whether the Herald-Leader can get it in tomorrow. I'm waiting. We have a phone and an email message into them to get confirmation, and as soon as I hear, I'll let you know. Thank you. We're good. All right. We need to vote on that. There was a motion in a second. Go ahead and present. Okay, I'll go ahead and finish it. We have a motion to say any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. That passes, so we'll be rescheduling the special meeting for the 12th of March at 6 o'clock. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. All right. Okay, that allows us to move back to our agenda. Oh, Council Member Ellinger, yeah. Let me just let everybody know that even though we will not have a quorum tonight, we'll need to at least show up at 6 o'clock and let everybody who attends to know that we are going to be rescheduling. So we need to still be here at 6 o'clock briefly to let everybody know so that gives the requirement that they know, both sides will know, that we're rescheduling. So that will be important that we still meet at 6. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ellinger. All right, so now we can move back to the original agenda. Are there any motions regarding rezonings or the docket? Is there a motion regarding approval of the docket? Motion by Councilmember Stennett, second by Councilmember Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Councilmember Stennett, do you have a no? No walk-on. That allows us to move on to the summary. Is there a motion regarding the summary? Motion by Council Member Beard. Second. Is there a second by Vice Mayor Gordon? Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. On page one, on the third motion, I think the amendment I would like to place is that the motion needs to recognize that I made that motion. Motion by Ford. and it was properly seconded by Ms. Lawless, which is mentioned there. All right. Thank you, Council Member Ford. If the clerk will appropriately note that adjustment. I'll ask the clerk to please note that adjustment. Thanks, Stacey. Thanks so much. All right. Any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And next on our agenda is budget amendments. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can. Wait a minute, Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't see. Oh, yeah, several here. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I'll start, and others I'm sure have since there's other comments. All right, I just want to start with 67229 Parks and Rec to provide funds for the construction of chain-link see-through ball field dugouts to replace existing brick-and-mortar dugouts in several parks by reducing funds for repairs and maintenance. Could you forward to this? I want a list of where those are. All right, so that's just a, if you'd like to ask the administration, the parks to? Yeah, just where will this $100,000 be spent? Okay. Since Mr. Hancock's up at the podium, why don't we let him speak to it? Sure. We have a couple of dozen brick-and-mortar dugouts around the county that are very unsafe, a lot of inappropriate behavior going on. And depending on the results of our bid, we'll know how many we can do, whether it's four or five or two or three or eight or ten. So I don't know now how many we'll be able to do. But I can send you a list of all the existing antiquated brick-and-mortar restrooms, dugouts that we have, I'm sorry. I just hope we get more than two or three for $100,000. Yeah, they might be $10,000 or $15,000 apiece. But they are far more safe and secure. They are secure by design. Yes, and the police prefer them. A lot of very inappropriate behavior is going on inside them today, unfortunately. Well, I think that from a council member district standpoint, I'd like to know where those are and where the resources will be spent. So any information? I'll be happy to send all of you that list. Thank you, sir. And then, Mayor, there are, and I know this has to do with our new vendor for our LexServe billing, but I just wanted to get a feel for what these 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there's 6 or 7 in here that have to do, I guess, with settling our expenses related to the sewer, water quality, and landfill fees. Mr. O'Mara is veritably racing to the podium. Please speak up. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. I will take responsibility for maybe a better wording for the description of these. But these are actually the same business being done just a procedurally different way. We charge all of our divisions for the use of their utilities, including sewer, landfill, water quality. And whereas they used to get individual bills and were processed through the payment system, We now get a report and we do it through journal entries and need this budget to make eliminations entries in the accounting books so that we don't double count revenue and double count expenses. So this is nothing more than a different process through the budget line items than we've done in the past. So is this something you might have changed even if we were still using our previous billing agent? It could have been, yes. and in just by way of further information how long is our contract with the current billing agent that we began with last year it it is for up to four years okay i appreciate and we we have of course uh outs uh if we show shoes wonderful all right you gotta love local baby all right one last one mayor on 67 336 transfer funds for parks aquatic This is $300,000. I'm just wondering, what does that signify? Top of page 8. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. It looks like Mr. Hancock's backup. You again. Yes, sir. At the Council's request, we're distributing our aquatic budget from 7601 aquatics to individual pools. So what this $300,000 does is it moves all of our seasonal money for this year because we'll be hiring those people before the new year starts. So what this does is move the seasonal money we need prior to this summer. And as of the July 1 budget, all of the pools were broken out separately, as you've requested. I appreciate that clarity. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, just to clarify on all of these, I guess this is the LexServe billings and trying to get them in the correct journals. How often are these budget amendments going to occur? Is it monthly? I think this is the true up for this fiscal year. Okay. So it's a one-time thing. And that will correct? That will have the budget lines appropriately funded. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mr. O'Mara. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak on the motion? All right. Then that allows us to vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We can move on to item Roman numeral 5, which is new business. Is there a motion to approve? Motion by Council Member. Same time there. Farmer got the last one. Beard gets this one. Council Member Beard. Is there a second? Mr. Farmer, okay. Got a yield there. Council Member Farmer got a second. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask Kevin Adkins a question about the show prop TIF item I. and this is the authorization to repeal that TIF and I remember about that TIF but my question goes back I couldn't remember if this was one that the government had fronted the money for the application and so I wondered even though it says no substantial activity I wondered if the government had spent any money In the 2000 budget, there was a bond done in 2010 for $4 million. In the 2012 budget, since those bond dollars had not been spent on show prop and had not been spent until that time, that money was reverted to the 911 radio. So we haven't spent anything. That's right. We've spent $0. That's correct. Do you know there was a TIF that we did the application. I think it was $50,000 that we put up. Do you have any knowledge of that? That was the distillery district. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Kevin, don't go away. I have a question on item H as far as the Tempur-Pedic, and it says their affiliates will be included. Right. So can you provide us with the number of employees? I'm assuming that's what this is, or you can explain this to me if you'd like. Well, yeah, what it does is it allows them to, everything that's under the Tempur-Pedic International Company, it would apply the incentives to those jobs that are located in Lexington. But I guess it makes it sound like they're not employed by Tempur-Pedic. They are employed by affiliates of Tempur-Pedic, correct? Well, for example, Tempur-Pedic has bought Sealy. Okay. But it's still a division. It would then be a division of Tempur-Pedic International. Can you provide us a breakdown of that? I'll be glad to give it for you. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Mr. Atkinson. Oh, Council Member Farmer. Just while he's still there. Yes, sir. It's a rainy day. Oh, goodness. Yes, sir. So how much money flowed from the previous TIF into the radio project? I mean, you said it was a $4 million bond. So we put the $4 million into the radios. Is that what you're saying? Chad Hancock said that the money that was allocated for that went to the radios, yes. I appreciate that definition, too. I'm good on that. Just for clarification, did I hear TIF or bonds? It wasn't really. I don't know. Maybe Bill is coming up to maybe amplify. It was part of the 2012 budget reallocation. So council was presented at the time. Yes. Right. I just wanted to make that clarification. But I guess this is just the housekeeping of dissolving the TIF function? This is the legal TIF, not the dollars. Right. The money's spent and gone, right? It's basically taken the document that you all established, the boundaries and the TIF, and it's dissolving that. Does that give us opportunity somewhere else to do something else now? It frees up the money that the state would consider as revenue potential in Lexington if there was another TIF that came along. Okay. Well done. I appreciate that. Mayor, I kind of had a couple on the FEMA things that are on here, which I'd spoken privately with Pat Duggar earlier, and she said we had actually used, I guess, a contractor to help write the plan. And they were based in Louisville and had done these in different parts of the state. And she gave interesting input that I wanted the council to hear in terms of some of the outcomes they ask us to study or to add into this plan that weren't there before. So I was going to, with your permission, ask her to do that. Yes, sir. Ms. Pat Duggar, please join us at the podium. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. In the hazard mitigation plan, as you remember, this is a plan that is required by FEMA, and it has to be updated every five years and approved by them in order for the community to be eligible for post-disaster funds, like for us to be eligible for reimbursement costs, for mitigation grants, et cetera. And we used the same contractors we used with the original plan, so they were very familiar. One of the things that we added were a couple additional hazards that we had not considered in the previous plan, and one of those was actually a catastrophic failure of the Dix Dam. It's not in Fayette County, but the flooding that could potentially occur from that would impact some of Fayette County. Also, we included some of the hazardous materials issues that are in the county as hazards. So we did expand our risk and hazard base, but it's excellent data. It has a lot of demographics. It has economic impact for the various different hazards, the social impact for the various hazards. So I would encourage you at your leisure to read through the hazard mitigation plan. It has a lot of great data in there. How often do we update that? Every five years is the requirement. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. And then lastly, Mayor, I'm just, a lot of other council members have way more interest than I in the potential for the placement of the new senior citizen center, but the item G that asks us to give $9,400 for the presentation basically we had last week, just, I don't know, I don't want to be snippy or anything, but it just kind of rubs me the wrong way. And maybe before we had them back, I would, I don't know, and I'm sure it was our Q&A that asked them to be here again, but I don't know. I'm still in a tight mindset in relation to how we allocate our resources, and that one just kind of got me a little bit. I don't really have a negative beyond that, but thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer preempted me. I wanted to have the first shot. Did they fly down here on a Grumman G5 or something? This just seems extraordinarily expensive for a cursory, what I consider a cursory look at two locations. and I won't call it lying exactly. There was some magic being done by them to settle our minds, and it did quite the opposite, Commissioner Mills. Can you help me with that? Because I'm not the only one either. I understand. After we did the initial sites, The council asked that we go more in-depth with Continental Inn, and also the administration asked that we do the turf and mall the same way. The reason we went with the same consultants is because they had done the original ones and they knew the study. They are out of town the whole month of March because they're doing this for another stake. So if we didn't do it soon, we would have put off any discussions of this until April, And because it was real estate, we kind of wanted to be expedient with it. And they had told us that it would be about $5,000 per site. The initial was about $20,000, and they did six sites. So these were a little bit higher, but that was within line with what they did. And we did run it by purchasing. We couldn't get it to you before they did the study because of the timing. So that's why you're getting it today. Well, things like the Turfland Mall situation, for instance. They kept on saying the owner did this and the owner said that and whatever, and I asked the question if they had talked to the owner specifically, and they said no. So I don't know really where they were coming from. They talked to the real estate agent that represented the owner. Well, that's not the owner, though. No, that's correct. We will have a final report to you. They have a preliminary final report, but they're waiting on the final data from the police department. I think they explained to you all that the person that was providing that data was away because of a family emergency. So when all of that data is in, we will provide the final report to all of the council members. And does that then solve our deal with them in their way? or are they going to be along with us for the whole? Well, we will have to put an RFP out for the next phase of work, and people will bid on it, so we don't know if it will be them or someone else. We are through with them with this part of phase one. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beard. All right. Looks like that. Council Member Stennett. Commissioner Mills, I just want to piggyback on Council Member Beard. He reminded me of something. So what is our total contract then going to be with lifespan? It will be $20,000 plus the $9,400, whatever that number is. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner? Yes, sir. So when they get their final report done, is it going to cost you extra for the final report? No, the final report is in their scope of work. Okay. And we have the preliminary final report, but I did not want to send it to you all until we had the crime data on all the sites. Sure. Okay, so once that's done, what's the next step? Okay, the next step will be to do an RFP for the next phase of design on potential properties for the Senior Citizen Center. And we have an RFP kind of drafted, and we'll be working with the mayor and the commission on aging to talk about the sites that will go for an RFP, and that would come to you all. Okay, that's my next question. So when the RFP goes out, is it going to include all four of those sites, or are you going to narrow it down, and how are you going to do that? After our meeting the other day, which didn't go totally smoothly. I missed it. Nicely put. We're going to regroup. we need to sit down and Commissioner Mills and I have talked about this and we need to sort of sit down, look at these sites all over again and see if our best strategy is to go out with an RFP. An RFP will cost more money and we sort of need now after hearing everybody's reaction and seeing this to sit down and regroup. and then come back to you all with what we think is the appropriate next step. Okay, so my final question, will the council have an opportunity to weigh in and other community members on what would go into the scope of the RFP once you get to that point? In other words, have you already determined what the use inside the building is to look like and those kind of things, or is that still? And this is something that the commissioner can talk about here. As far as the use of the building and the program of the building, that will be after we have kind of selected a site and design. And the Senior Services Commission will be charged with doing a lot of that. It's a group of 22 individuals. It's currently chaired by Gail Reese. Vice Mayor Gorton chaired it last year. And that group will be talking about programming. We've also done needs assessments through the community, Ask Lexington focus groups. We have a lot of information, but we will be doing more of that as we go forward. We'll also be looking at public-private partnerships, how to fund what goes in there, that sort of thing. We were here about the EEOC last week, how we went down a road and spent a lot of money and never went anywhere, and we really want to avoid that. We want to be good stewards. So, you know, property acquisition is very difficult in the public eye, so I think what CAO Hamilton is saying is correct. At some point, we need to settle on a site so that we can move forward, and we don't want those sites to come under contract with someone else before we can move on to the next phase. So there will be discussions about how to do that with the mayor and the vice mayor. Okay. Do you know if there's anybody from the 8th District on that panel, that 22 person? Can you give us a breakdown of where? We can give you a list of who's on the commission. You're talking about the commission for senior services? The 22 that you said would be deciding what? Yeah, the commission. We can give you a list of the commission. They're appointed by the mayor. Many of them are experts in aging, and it's not district appointed. It's interest in seniors and work with seniors. Okay. The reason I ask that is at different times when the council has talked about the Senior Citizen Center, there's been ideas thrown out of having an indoor pool. There's all kinds of different things. And so I'm just trying to get an understanding of when we get some input into that so that the train doesn't leave the station and you guys decide what we're going to put in the building, and then that's what it's going to be. And, of course, a lot of that's going to boil down to what we can afford. you know on the site that's what the due diligence will be on the site it's like what are the costs we have not anticipated what's the final cost can we afford it and then we know the footprint we know we need 46,000 square feet we know we need 200 parking spaces but things that are inside and and what will be added will have a lot to do with what we can afford and what we can do right which is why the property is key because there's a pretty big difference in price for the properties we're looking at absolutely and i i'll just wait from there thank you very much commissioner yes and we will certainly we're going to be back to you all several times on this and uh with all the ideas and proposals thank you very much thank you mayor yes sir thank you council member meyers council member beard yes thank you uh commissioner mills Yes. Is it totally off the table to have two centers, smaller centers? At this point, we are not considering that. Part of it is the cost of staffing the two centers, paying utilities for two centers. It would be an expensive proposition. We still have the three satellite centers. They're not as comprehensive as the big center, but it's the thinking of the commission, the consultants, and those of us who work in this that we need an identifiable spot for aging. We would like to collect as many agencies that work with seniors in one spot because as people age or people move into Lexington, they need a central location that's easy to identify to go to get help. And if you have a whole lot of centers like some communities do, that kind of takes away that focus. Well, I just was curious because we had some discussion again about the Continental Inn location. And I do think that the north side of Main Street is not getting a whole lot of attention. In the future, that could possibly be phased in, I mean, with the growing aging population. But to do two centers at one time means two directors, two sets of transportation, two sets of meals. It's pretty expensive. Yeah. Oh, the whole thing is going to be pretty expensive. One's going to be expensive. Yeah. Thank you. It may be cost prohibitive. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner Mills. All right. Any other council members speak on the motion? All right. Then hearing, if no one else wishes to speak, we'll call for the question and the vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. I need to dial back to the zoning hearing issue that was scheduled for tonight. Vice Mayor Gordon has an update on that, I think. Well, there's some question right now about the advertising, so I think while we're working it out, it would be good for council members to look at whether they can come to a Wednesday night. the 13th meeting, and we'll get back to you. All right. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. This allows us to move on to presentations and continuing business. Is there a motion on the NDF? Motion by Council Member Meyers, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And next on our agenda is a summary, a report on the Economic Development Committee of the Whole meeting on February 19th by Councilmember Julian Beard. Thank you, Mayor. We met on February 19th, as the Mayor mentioned. I called the meeting to order at 11.05, and all members were present except Acrieson and Myers. On a motion by Stennett, second by Gorton, the summary of the 10 to 2012 meeting was approved unanimously. The next point was a selection of a vice chair, and I asked Council Member Stennett if he would serve as vice chair, and he accepted, so that's what happened. And we then asked Commerce Lexington for their quarterly report. And everybody has to remember that they're on a different calendar than we are. So they're doing their quarterly report for the second quarter, which is October, November, and December, as opposed to our quarter. they seem to have done an awful lot in that period of time. Creation of 50 high-tech jobs, Biomedical Development Corp., Innovative Energy Solutions, Inveno Therapeutics, Minerva Systems, and Telehealth Holdings all operated, open operations in Lexington. They're small businesses. but it's a start for them and they can grow. They also, during 2012, affected 1,420 new jobs with average wages of $44,022 and a capital investment of $137.3 million. And Jenna Greathouse, Senior Vice President of Commerce Lexington, stated that this included the location of the Bingham Law Support Office with 250 new jobs and an average salary of $60,000. Councilman Kaye asked if a median salary, in addition to average salary, could be provided. In response, Greathouse stated that she would get back to the council with that information. The next issue was the food truck work group. And as most everybody knows, we've been struggling with the food truck issue for some time. And it seems like we've made some progress on that to their satisfaction, the food truck owners, and to our satisfaction also. So we did not approve the ordinance at that point. There are other aspects that need to be taken care of, but we're pretty far down the road on it. Several citizens spoke in favor of the draft ordinance, including Sean Tibbetts, Bob Douglas, Julie Griffin, and Paula Singer. Singer did state that while she was in favor of the proposed administrative changes, she wanted some protections for residential neighborhoods. On the motion by Farmer and second by Lawless, the draft ordinance was approved unanimously. We also have asked the fiscal impact of the Kentucky Horse Park, and next week we're going to have them back to talk about agriculture in general and what it means to Fayette County and this whole region. meeting adjourned at 12.15 p.m. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Akers, you wish to speak on the report? Yes. To the report? Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to just make a little clarification. Actually, the food truck ordinance was approved in the Economic Development Committee. Part of the ordinance was approved and moved on and was passed. last week in Council. That's all. Thank you, Councilman Rakers. We'll clean that up. Thank you. I believe that would then need a motion to be placed on the docket, the proposal that was approved in committee. Is that right? No. We did both of those. We did two things. That's all right, but we vote on that. I believe you're back. It's already been. Yeah. Thank you. The vote on that first piece. Yeah, there we go. Yes, sir. All right. Next on our agenda, then, is a report on the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on February 19th by Chair Chuck Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. The Budget and Finance Committee met on February 19th. The first item on the agenda was the committee meeting summary of January 29th. We approved that unanimously. The next issue was the Homeless Commission. Councilmember Kay, who was co-chair of the Mayor's Homeless Commission, requested that the item staying committed until a comprehensive funding approach can be agreed to. Councilmember Kay called upon Mayor Gray, who spoke, that the administration was committed to staff the proposed Office of the Homeless Intervention and Prevention. Mayor Gray said that he will propose funding for the office in his fiscal year 14 mayor's proposed budget and said the office will develop a plan to implement the Homeless Commission recommendation to develop a workable housing trust fund model. Numerous citizens spoke on the Homeless Commission report, both for and against. and we will keep this along with the Homeless Commission report and the Affordable Housing Task Force and Commission for further discussion. The next item on the agenda was the monthly financial report by Bill Merrill, who provided a monthly report. He said that the unemployment rate, employment building permits used, new business license, and home sales were also in a positive position. He reported that in the major revenue categories, the actual general fund revenue is lagging behind the budget revenue by over $1.6 million through January. He stated that the business net profits are under budget by $2.7 million, while the franchise fees are approximately $1.6 million. He stated that the insurance premium tax is $2.4 million ahead of the budget through January. Acting Budget Director Mary Luca discussed that year-to-date the total actual revenue collections are approximately $500,000 ahead of budget primary due to increases in services and ad valorem categories. Actual expenses are approximately $5 million below the budget expenses year to date. She stated that this is primarily due to diligent management of personnel accounts. She also stated the operating expenses are about $1.3 million less than budget, primarily due to reduced need for salt. Vice Mayor Gorton asked about the franchise fees. She stated that the council had voted to increase the franchise fees by 1% over the mayor recommended that the franchise fees increase in the mayor's proposed budget. She wanted to know why the increase did not go into effect. In response, David Barbary stated that the premium tax is part of the franchise agreements with the affected utilities, and they are still negotiating the franchise agreements. She stated that the franchise agreements for natural gas and electric should be before the council during March. we ran out of time to finish the last item agenda, which was the financial efficiency ordinance, and we decided to put that on for the work session, and that will actually happen here after I give my report. The meeting adjourned at 3.05. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilor Ellinger. All right. Next on our agenda is a presentation regarding financial efficiency ordinance by Council Member Lane. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. And I'd also like to thank the Council for allowing me to make this presentation at today's meeting since we ran along on several Budget and Finance Committee meetings. I think that the first slide I'm going to put up would be the primary goal of the ordinance. And this is very simplistic, but it's for each department and division of the government to achieve the highest level of productivity and cost effectiveness in the delivery of government services. And that's more or less our overall goal. Now, having said that, I thought it would be appropriate maybe just to give a little historical perspective of where we have been since I've been on council. And I was elected in 2004. In 2005, the council passed or actually approved the recommendation of the Isaac administration to purchase PeopleSoft. And that accounting system was put into service in fiscal year 2007. on July 1, 2006. So the idea here, the concern that I have today is that the revenues of our government have remained static over the last five years. They've gone up a little bit, gone down a little bit, but there really hasn't been any change in our total revenue. At the same time, expenses for personnel, health care, utilities, gasoline, and asphalt paving have continued to increase. So in order for us to deal with a flat income and escalating costs, I feel that our city government must be operated more efficiently and effectively, and we can do that by using cost accounting, technology, training of our personnel, and best practices to lower the city's cost in providing services. and having said that, this financial efficiency ordinance is not targeting any one individual or any employees of the urban county government. I think that the truth is that the city's financial system for two decades has been somewhat ineffective in managing the government and determining what our cost of operations are. and when I was elected in 2004, one of the key issues on the election was to have better control over our accounting system so that the present cost of providing services can be determined on a cost per service basis provided. All right, I'm running the slides here. The three components of the ordinance are cost accounting, and that is to accurately determine what it costs to provide services. For example, picking up a Herbie of garbage or preparing a car in our fleet management service. Any service that we provide, we know what the cost is. If you don't know the cost, you don't know whether we're at market rate or we're under market rate, and whether it's a competitive pricing. The second area is the oversight of capital projects, and the project that I have been most concerned about is the EPA consent agreement where we will be spending approximately $600 million over 12 years. And I wanted to discuss this a little bit more in detail before we go into the balance of the report. is the concept here of the oversight is to engage an owner's representative who would be a professional engineer and it would be a firm of several people. And their job would be to report back to the mayor's office and the council and operate as a fiduciary for the city government. They would not be trying to represent themselves and their fees, but to represent the government. Some of the duties they would have as a fiduciary would be to look at cost analysis, to do the project, to review all change orders and all bids that come in, see if they're competitive, to act as an extension of the executive and the council, the executive branch, the legislative branch, with regard to these projects. so if any questions come up, then a council member or somebody on the mayor's staff could get information from them. To work as a watchdog for compliance and ethics to ensure quality of the construction project, to do value engineering, to figure ways maybe we could redesign something to bring down the cost of the project. As I mentioned, to confirm change orders, we have change orders that come before the council, and we really don't know what the change order is all about. This would give more details if it was needed. The other benefit is that the engineering firm would maintain records of the project from beginning to end, and that is also important because in the EPA capital project we have going on, we have multiple companies that are working on it, and not one company is in charge of every component that's being constructed. The other area is the independent evaluations. And in that regard, I'm going to touch on that a little bit further, but I think that the work that the mayor's done demonstrates this is an important and valuable exercise. And I want to just cite the health care program that we had where we ran about $10 million over budget in one year. and we really weren't even aware that we were out of control on the budget until after the fiscal year had passed. By bringing in an outside consulting firm to evaluate our health care program, we were able to use best practices to restructure it, to get better administration of the program, to put in a free clinic, and to have reduced costs for drugs through our pharmacy. and that's saving about $10 million a year now. And over 10 years, that's $100 million in savings. And what I'm feeling would be appropriate would be to have oversight of all of our major departments of government and rather than waiting until we are in the ditch and we have a problem, we can be proactive and try to see if we can make improvements before they cost us a lot more money because we didn't do something as well as we possibly could have. This is a brief overstatement of what cost accounting would be all about, and that would be that all revenues, appropriations, operating costs, administrative and indirect costs, capital investment and debt services would be budgeted and accounted for using generally accepted governmental accounting standards on a monthly cost-centered basis. That means that each department would know what their budget is and what they've actually spent in comparison to the budget, and we could see how cost-effectively that is being managed. This would allow the executive and the legislative branches of the urban government to accurately evaluate the precise operating costs and the operational efficiency of each service being provided by the government. And we don't really know what it costs us to deliver some of the services the government is providing. and the oversight of capital projects, and this will be for each capital project, which is projected or budgeted to cost $750,000 or more, and that's sort of an arbitrary number. It might be a higher number than that. The Urban County Council will engage an owner's construction representative to act as a third-party fiduciary to provide comprehensive services regarding the organization, coordination, management, financial control, and administration required for such capital projects and to protect the financial interest and investments of the government and its citizens. And I think there are two ways to look at this. Let's just go back to the EPA consent agreement at $600 million over 12 years. If we save 1%, that would be the equivalent of $6 million in savings, and that might be potentially a goal of the third-party fiduciary to help save costs for the city. On the other hand, if we don't have good oversight and the cost went up 10%, then we're talking about an additional $60 million in cost. So there are two benefits here. One is that we would try to operate more efficiently and save money. The second would be to be an insurance policy to help ensure that we don't have costs run out of control due to poor management. And I think it's important to mention here, too, that since we've been started on the EPA consent agreement, we've had three mayors. We've had Mayor Isaac, Mayor Newberry, and Mayor Gray. And we've had five councils of two years each that have been working and involved in some capacity on that. And each of those councils had different members of the council. So that has changed over the five terms. And then we've probably had five commissioners of environmental quality or fill-ins. It was called something before environmental quality, I believe, before it was called environmental quality. So we've had changes in commissioners. We have had the benefit of having Charlie Martin, who is the director of water quality, who has been running the program. I think everybody is very impressed with the work that he's done. But here again, this probably may go another 10 years, so we may be in a situation where time will run out. I'm going to jump over to the back because I realize I'm running a little long on my time. Let's see if I can get this to go here. I wanted to, this is the idea on the independent evaluations, that if a department of government expended over $35 million a year, that every two years an independent evaluation would be conducted to see the efficiency, best practices, and that means that there would be two divisions per year that would have a study done, and then the other year there would be two more. Now, to give you an example, the Division of Police and Fire are spending about $70 million a year. So, you know, if we can figure some way to be more efficient, use best practices, there's a great savings potential there. On the other departments that are over $5 million but under $35 million, there's nine of those. And those would be evaluated every four years. That means there would be two or three per year that would be checked out. So we'd have probably four or five audits of these departments per year. And my closing thought on this is that we're currently spending about $471 million a year, almost a half a billion dollars. And if we were able to say 1%, that's $4.7 million, and a half a percent is $2.4 million, and a quarter percent is $1.2 million. And the purpose of really mentioning this is that, you know, the question is, what's the benefit of doing this? And this is what the benefit is. We should pay for the studies we're doing with the savings that we can incur. And even small efficiencies will generate savings over time. $10,000 savings over 10 years is $100,000. Now, just very briefly, I made just a list of ten examples of what I call financial inefficiency. The first one was the health care plan, which I've already mentioned, that went $10 million over budget in one year. As I said, the mayor did a great job in restructuring that program. Kearney Hills golf course had a water leak that cost $100,000 because we did not have good accounting to identify that we had an excess expense for water. The streetlight fund is $2 million overspent because our accounting didn't give us the detail we needed on a timely basis that we were over budget because of increases in electric charges. We're doing a solid waste task force, and in order to figure out what it costs to pick up garbage and provide other services, We hired an outside consulting firm, and approximately $30,000 of their fee was to analyze operational costs for that department. I also, another problem we have, and I'll pull this out just to cite an example. This is our annual budget, and this is our CAFRA. These two documents are not coordinated, so you can look at the budget and the CAFRA and compare the numbers. So we need to coordinate our accounting systems where they will work more efficiently. And we've already mentioned the EPA issue where I have concern about that. The issue of the brownouts with the fire department came up for an expense of maybe $1 or $2 million if we had to spend extra money for overtime. My thought is that that is trying to fix the cure to fix a problem without finding out what the real problem is. We have 23 fire stations. We're spending $72 million a year for the fire department. That's $3.1 million per station. I feel that it would be appropriate to evaluate where the stations are located. as far as I know, that no fire stations have been closed since the urban county government was formed over 35 years ago or relocated, and it seems to me that we could operate maybe more efficiently if we had a better position of the stations. The IT system, and I wanted to just quote one comment. We just had a study of our IT system. it says that functionality defined during the PeopleSoft implementation never completed or fully satisfied the business requirements by departments. Many of the functionality gaps have forced departments to operate in Excel spreadsheets and homegrown databases. Instead of adopting PeopleSoft industry best practice processes, legacy or existing processes and procedures were continued, requiring a high degree of people-soft customization, which is now cumbersome to manage. That's why we are not able to get really good financial data. And I'll just close by mentioning the pension fund. And here again, I want to compliment the mayor, and this is a good example where we brought in another outside consultant to use best practices to see about restructuring the pension fund. And then in closing, I'm going to pick on the parks, golf, and pools. And we've had a great deal of trouble trying to figure out what it actually costs us to operate those facilities. And, I mean, we've gone sometimes two or three years at a time trying to assess our costs. So as you can see, there are great opportunities for us to improve our financial efficiency of government. and I would ask the council to strongly consider the ordinance that's pending before us. And I will now take questions. I'm sorry I ran a minute or so over. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Lane. And we have several council members signed up to speak or comment to the presentation. And so I think it would probably be appropriate for the council members to engage Council Member Lane, I guess, directly, or we could call on someone if we need someone else to speak from the audience. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Okay. First is Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Lane. I appreciate your intent. this is a seems to be a large program and I'm so sorry that we did not hear this in committee first of all I think it could have been thoroughly vetted and I know there are some folks in our audience that it would directly impact Mr. Martin for one and I guess I would ask you first and then I'll ask him to tell us what the financial impact is to water quality to follow through with this. Do you have an estimate on that? Yeah, that would be fine. I'd be happy to hear what Charlie Martin has to say. Okay, so Charlie, do you have any idea what the financial and workload impact would be to water quality? And then I would just simply ask that for any input from our CAO and our Commissioner of Finance, because this looks like it is going to cost us some money and have some time implications. On the money end of things, it really is a function, I think, of how much detail you're asking somebody to provide a third party. Obviously, the more time they have to invest, the more they're going to bill you for it. I'm as interested in saving money as anybody is, but I was sitting back there listening, wondering how much do you have to spend to save. And I don't really know the answer to that, but if the cost of fiduciary third party was 5% of that $600 million, you're talking about $30 million in additional costs. So the question is, and like I said, if you had the crystal ball, you could look at that. If you're going to spend $30 million to save $100 million, that's a good deal. But if you're going to spend $30 million to save five, then it's not. And so it's really hard to say. You know, we have Hazen and Sawyer in place right now. They are the consulting firm, professional engineers, that are responsible for all of those projects to make sure that they are getting done accordingly. Vernon Azevedo was approved by the council to be the construction manager who is solely devoted to the remedial measures. He's already conducted one value engineering on the town branch storage tanks that has yielded some pretty positive results for us right now as far as the overall costs. But, again, I listen to that intently because I think that Council Member Lane and I have talked about this several times. Philosophically, I'm right on board with him. We've got to find ways to save money. Without looking at this closer, it's hard to say whether or not this is really the right approach or not. I appreciate your input. Thank you. And I guess I would wonder if the CAO or Commissioner of Finance has anything to add about what impact this might have. I know that I'm very familiar with Hazen and Sawyer and what they're doing, and I guess my question on that one with water quality would be, is this a duplication of services? But anyway, Commissioner, soon to be Commissioner. I'm sorry. I was not trying to comment on Charlie's point. Yes. I wondered if you have any comments on this whole plan and proposal. Yes, ma'am. I think we can all agree that we embrace the goals and the intent that that first slide showed. but I think we're talking about budget implications and how to spend those budget dollars in order to make a government more efficient. I think that we're actually doing some of the things already. We've instituted monthly budget reviews and budget reports with the division directors this past year. My predecessor and director of budgeting put that in place. It is good business management, and we're glad to say that we've started it. We've also done other things. Council Member Lane talked about the win with health care and in controlling those costs and the fact that targeted investments can save you money with the city pharmacy and health care. The administration has also visited Louisville and looked at their Louis Stat project and their Office of Performance Improvement, and also met with representatives from UK and Toyota about their partnership for lean continuous improvement. So we're very open and very focused to work on these efficiencies. The Acela project is being developed and showing efficiencies in the areas that it's being implemented. But all these things cost money, and it's a matter of budget priorities. And I think it's one that's iterative, that you build on over time. I think this project is not something that you can adopt and implement in one fiscal year. I don't have the name, but I can get it. But a Harvard professor has talked about the private sector who has adopted continuous improvement programs and software and programs and over 50 percent failure. So this is a difficult thing to institutionalize. It's a difficult thing to invest and come up with the infrastructure to do it. The infrastructure that is appropriate for waste management may not be the same type of reporting for social services and performance measures for that type. And so acknowledging that our organization is very widespread as to the services and the type of things that we do, make this something that has to be done in a continuous improvement method. Well, I appreciate your perspective. I guess where I am on it today, Council Member Lane, is that given what Mr. Martin and Mr. O'Meara said, it might be helpful for us to vet in committee what we're already doing that's in here and what we need to do and have some full-blown discussion about those things and where we might move parts of it forward. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to just make a short comment on that. I basically agree with many things that Mr. O'Mara said, but here's my thought. If we had been proactive about the health care program rather than reactive, we could have maybe saved $10 million because we would have caught the problem we were having in that department before we found out we were $10 million over budget. And those are the kind of points I'm trying to make is that we can't wait until something goes wrong to respond to it. We need to be proactive and try to find out what the problem is. I'd also like to point out that we're spending $4.3 million for computer services, $900,000 for enterprise solutions, and the Department of Finance has a budget of $5.4 million. That's $10 million we're spending right now in our budget for accounting, finance, and enterprise solutions. So it's not like this is a huge amount more money than we're already spending, and maybe we could reallocate some of those funds in another area. The other thing I wanted to share is this is a list of the projects for the EPA consent agreement. They've been in the last 12 months, and there's 90 items on here, and the total cost is $65 million. And I wanted to remind the council members that every one of these projects came before us and was approved by a vote of council, and every change order was approved by a vote of council. And frankly, I don't see how we can really competently approve those with the amount of information we have on each one that comes before us for approval. And it might be better not even to vote them and just let them do the projects without our approval because our approval is really more of a rubber stamp than really an evaluation of the investment. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Lane, what is your time frame in introducing this ordinance today? Were you looking to make a motion today, or is this just for information only, you know, go back to committee? Well, here's the dilemma that we have. First off, I've been working on this since last winter, and, you know, we had to break, and then we had two meetings got strung out. We didn't get to make the presentation, so we're a little late into this year. I was hoping we could do something around starting the next fiscal year, but now we're into March. I don't really think that's totally practical. So it seems like that maybe the goal would be to implement this a year from now. And that hurts me to say that because you and I came on to council at the same time. I remember that Isabel Yates was quoted as saying she was on a committee to do outsourcing for government services or whatever. And she says, we don't know whether we can outsource or not because we can't determine what it costs us to provide the service. And that was back then. And, of course, I'm totally disappointed. We spent $20 or $25 million on the PeopleSoft, and we still don't have good accounting to help us in running the government more efficiently. So I think that the long-term goal should be to try to implement all of these points. The question is how quickly we can do it, and I think that's a question that collectively maybe council could make a decision on. So no motion today, right? Right. Okay. I just want a couple comments. One, on the cost-based accounting, I think we have an accountant in the room, a couple, actually. If you ask everyone out in the private sector what is cost-based accounting, you're going to get a different answer every time you ask. It's a very difficult thing to define. I think it's something we would have to internalize and define ourselves. On the other two points, I think the financial implications of those are way out there, a lot more than we can afford to expend, because I think if we look first internally, I think we have a lot of smart people in government. I think we have a lot of people who have some very good ideas on how to become more efficient. I know, you know, just take, for instance, John Sheet's presentation earlier about our vehicles. That was a great, great idea on how to streamline our purchasing vehicles. And we have talent like that here. And I'd like to look internally and assist Charlie when he's doing all those sanitary sewer and stormwater projects first and see where we become more efficient internally before we turn it over and spend extra dollars. Because, as Mr. O'Meara said, it's hard to quantify how much, and I think Charlie alluded to this too, to spend in order to gain. It's going to be a very difficult thing to get our hand around, but I appreciate your effort. but I do think we have some opportunity to improve, and I think we already have. But I think we have the talent in-house, homegrown, that can help us on some of our major areas first before implementing an ordinance that requires us to look outside. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member K. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of comments. I think everybody is going to say, whoever speaks to this issue, that we're all in favor of the efficiency and cost savings. The question is, how do we do that as a government? Essentially, what's the appropriate approach? And I think it's building on what Council Member Stinnett said. I think this is a broader issue, and what has been brought before us is a particular way to address that issue. It's one possible way. I don't think it's the only way. I would like to see a broader conversation about efficiency and cost effectiveness that looked at all the ways the government might address this. And my concern about this specific proposal is that it seems like an additional layer of bureaucracy and administration, it seems like we're being asked to consider incurring a present cost in terms of time and money for a projected savings. and it's not clear whether this particular way of approaching it would actually result in those savings. So, as I said, I think I'd like to see a broader approach to this question, and I do have one specific question for Council Member Lane, if you're willing, to respond. How would we know if these particular interventions actually ended up saving us money? what would be the gauge? Well, I don't want to talk about specific departments of government because I don't think that's fair to single one department out, but if we were able to provide the same amount of services for less cost, that would be a demonstration that we've made efficiencies in the operation of the government, and that's really what our goal should be. and I think this can't be just Ed Lane or the council or the mayor, but it needs to be every person that works for government needs to have cost efficiency, better operations, better practices. It needs to be our goal, and we need to make that part of the mantra of our government. The only concern I have about using the people already on staff to come in and evaluate our own operations is because they are already in there running it. I think it's very difficult to be totally objective. And, for example, we brought the health care people in. They totally restructured our health department, our health care program, and our health care services and all that. And I think it was a very good change. I think we have that possibility to do this in other parts of our government to make it even more efficient. Well, just to follow up, I agree that this might save money. My concern is that if, let's say tomorrow we agreed and we instituted this particular approach, how would we know that the way in which the people who are implementing that from the outside were saving us money or whether the government in other ways was introducing efficiencies that were saving us money and whether the investment, as is Charlie Martin's point, is the investment worth the savings. So if we were going to do it internally, and that would result in savings of $10, $15 million, and we hired someone to assist with that, and it cost us $3, $4, $5 million, and they didn't add enough on top of what we already would have saved, it's not a good investment. And I don't see how that's measurable. I don't see how you can identify the actual savings that would result from having someone in, as you have suggested. Well, I think you have to look at low-hanging fruit would be your first start on this, where you feel like there's the greatest opportunity for better efficiencies, and that's really what should be our target. And I think, you know, I would not envision spending $15 million a year to have somebody come in and do this work for us. I mean, Mayor, what was the cost to have the health care program evaluated? What do we pay for that? You're talking about benefits marketing? Yeah, the people came in the study force. Insurance, Councilman Stenney, what was it? $150,000 annually? Right. Right. See, so that's my point. That's a good deal, $150,000 save $10 million. What was the cost for the pension fund people? $150,000. There must be a magic number there, but here again, that's supposed to save quite a bit of money there, too. That's what I'm trying to say is that I'm not envisioning spending millions and millions, but I think that there is a lot of opportunity and to have an objective, independent third party come in and look at different divisions of our government and see what other best practices are in other cities and bring those to us so that we can compare them to what we're doing and maybe there would be ways we could save money. And the other thing that worries me, and I want to go back again to the EPA consent agreement, if you will go on the Internet and just look up EPA consent agreements, and there are lots of financial issues out there. I know that in Birmingham, Alabama, I believe they had to take a bankruptcy down there because they went out of whack. And even over in Louisville, they're having to reorganize their metropolitan sewer district, They're merging it in with the water company, and the head of the water company has taken over the operations of the sewer system because they've got some financial issues over there too. So it's not difficult for something to go off track. And when you're spending $65 million a year, 10%, that's a lot of money if there's a mistake in there, or even 1%, $650,000. That's all I'm saying. I think we have to protect our taxpayers, our citizens, our ratepayers from anything that could go wrong. This is like an insurance policy, having somebody who is a fiduciary working for the council and the mayor's office to just double-check what's going on. I don't see that as being a multi-million dollar project. I see it, if you had three or four people working on that with a professional firm, I think I'd be very reasonably cost-structured on that. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Council Member Beard. Thank you, ma'am. I talked a little bit with Council Member Lane about this. It's the type of thing that I've been through this in my careers in the past. And I will give you an example of cost accounting at its worst. another department head and I took an individual out to lunch. And the lunch was like $18. And he, at the table in front of the person, took the bill and allocated the monies to the three entities and handed me my bill that I'm supposed to kick in and then take that to accounting to get reimbursed. The cost of accounting in and of itself is what level and what color and shade do you want because it is a wide open door as far as anything to do. the overhead is a big issue. We got into, across the street, we got into a thing where the bank card area wanted to allocate the cost of the main building and the chairman and the president and all the overhead because the chairman never came to the credit card department. He never influenced anything that happened in the credit card department. Other people did. And we had infighting, and it was a mess by the time we got through. And we got through by dialing back, not going forward, and did more of a simplistic approach to the cost accounting. And we had brought in some people, and we had two or three accountants over the time from the big six or big eight, whatever they are. All three of them were substantial people at a substantial price. So I'm not saying stop this process, but I'm saying that we need to tiptoe and be very careful about what we're doing and who we're doing it with. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Mayor. As I listen to this discussion, I'm convinced that Council Member Lane is on something very important here. And I don't think we can make any kind of decisions at this point, but this idea deserves a great deal of study. And any time we can look at budget matters or projects and find ways to save money, we owe that to our constituents. And so I would like to simply say to Council Member Lane that I think this is a good first step, that we ought to pursue it with great deliberation. And I don't know how the process would work. I don't think we know enough at this point. but there's some real possibilities here for saving major money. And that's not implicating anybody who works for us right now. But there are ways. I am absolutely convinced of that. The more I know, the more I see that. I can't tell you how, but I just have a real feeling that we're on to something by doing some things like this. Maybe not specifically this. but it's a worthy project and we ought to look at it very seriously. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Any other Council members wish to speak? I'd just like to say thank you, Council Member Clark. Yeah. All right. Thank you. I would, from the point of view of the administration, I too want to thank Council Member Lane. You know, he has vigorously and he's been a vigorous advocate for spending responsibly, for investing responsibly. and that has a lot of value. When I think it was Council Member Kay and Interim Commissioner, for a time at least, we hope it can change soon to more permanent, when Bill O'Mara was speaking, he mentioned that there are many approaches. I believe you both said that, that there are many approaches to efficiency. There are many approaches to improving quality. Bill mentioned the dimension, which is really important, the culture and the willingness of a culture to embrace quality improvement, quality improvements, continuous improvement that usually yields efficiency. And all of that is a real hallmark of modern and contemporary management. We've got some great leaders in that just a few miles north of here with Toyota Motor. And today at the University of Kentucky, their Lean Manufacturing Institute. So I just want to say again what others have said, Council Member Beard, everyone who spoke, Vice Mayor, that it really is encouraging and it's inspiring for members of this council and the leadership here to support continuous improvement. and that's what our citizens expect. And hearing these kinds of initiatives, hearing a robust and vigorous debate about it demonstrates how much we're interested in it. So I want to thank you for that, Council Member Lane. In terms of just as a footnote, I think this is a little bit of a footnote to what Bill was saying and to what Mr. Martin, Charlie Martin, was saying. And I think largely a function of Council Member Lane's encouragement on the consent decree projects. Vernon Azevedo's involvement in the project, the value engineering work that he's been undertaking, the every other week meetings that they are having today with Chief Administrative Officer Sally Hamilton, the vigor of that work, the discipline of it, what I'm bringing to the table there is, in my view at least and from my experience on construction projects, it's very encouraging to see that level of management and that level of discipline that's being brought to the table. And I think this was something important that just last week, for example, they went to Louisville, met with Greg Heitzman, now either the president or director of both MSD and the Louisville Water Company, And they agreed to, I got a message from Greg that they had agreed with Vernon and Charlie to do a quarterly best practices meeting with Louisville and bring northern Kentucky into it. In order to ensure that we are all measuring and getting benchmarks and metrics that are meaningful and we're sharing best practices. so I want to thank you for all of this encouragement Council Mayor Lane thank you Mayor and I would just like to say I would like to see us do a lot more of this and I think a good bit of that could originate out of the Mayor's office particularly maybe some independent third party evaluations some of the divisions of government how we could maybe operate with better practices and those are just one time expenditures and if we got a payback on those like we've gotten back on some of the other projects, that would be very good for the government. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. That allows us to move on to council reports. Actually, Vice Mayor Gordon, before we move on to council reports, we've got another update on the hearing originally scheduled for tonight. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, so our council clerk has let me know that the Herald leader will not allow us to advertise tomorrow because their deadline was already passed before work session. It was already over. and the state statute says we have to have seven days minimum advertising time. So our only option left is to have our meeting on the 13th because we don't have time to comply with state statute and advertise for the 12th. So we need to take a poll of those who are left, which is 11 of us, and see if we can have 10 people from this group who can come on Wednesday, the 13th, for this public hearing. Probably 6 o'clock. So, Mayor, I would say if we want to go ahead and just raise your hand if you can come. I know several people already have told me they have a conflict. So who could be here on the 13th at 6 o'clock? three, four, five five, if our three missing council members could be here that would be eight maximum well we have more than three who aren't here now we have four so we're in a bit of a pickle, Mayor since we can't confirm a quorum right now for the 13th I will go ahead and move to cancel the meeting on the 12th since we know we can't comply with the statute and advertising time. So move to cancel the hearing on the 12th. Second. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Kaye. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Beard. Vice Mayor, you know, sometimes these things bleed over into the next day. Yes. It would have to be finished by midnight. When I was the Economic Development Director, I came down and watched one that was 3 o'clock in the morning. Is that some way, if we were to carry the activity on the 12th over to the 13th? Because that's when the decision will be made. We don't have time to comply with the state statute and advertise for a meeting on the 12th. That's our problem on the 12th. Well, I guess the question is the definition of what's a meeting. Well, I'll ask our council clerk to speak to that. We would be setting a public hearing, which our law, if someone could speak to that statute. I'm talking about a workaround kind of a thing. I'm not sure I understand a workaround. A workaround is that we come in on the 12th, we stay until 12.15 or whatever it might be, and actually make our decisions at that point. I don't know what the meeting is. Is the meeting everything that involves, or is the meeting the final decision? I understand what you're, I think I understand what you're saying. And the actual time that it is advertised is what time that the meeting actually has to be convened. So if it was advertised for the 13th, then it would not be able to be convened until the 13th, meaning you couldn't meet starting it late on that Tuesday the 12th and not make a decision until the 13th. Is that what you were? That's what I was thinking. Yes, sir. No, sir, I don't think that would be. I know it won't be popular amongst us, but the question is whether it can be perceived as legal. Well, I'm not. But here comes somebody that might help us. It's Mr. Keith Horn. The time is going to run from the beginning of the meeting, not the end or when you take action at the meeting. So the seven days, the relevant timing is when does the meeting begin. Okay. Just attempting to be innovative. And, Mayor, if I might say, if we hold this meeting on the 13th, it would, and Mr. Horn, if you can just confirm this legally, it would have to be finished by midnight because that is the deadline for this particular ND1. For this type of hearing and meeting, that is correct. You would have to complete your action before the 14th. The 13th at midnight, everything has to be finished. So the motion is to cancel the 12th. All right. Mr. Stennett, do you wish to speak up? I'm showing you up here. All right. Okay, great. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Okay. All right. Hearing none, then we'll take a vote. All in favor of the motion? Please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. So, Mayor, it would appear that we cannot get a quorum for the 13th. I'm wondering if you, I mean, I don't know if it would be worth just going ahead and setting up a special meeting in case you don't know the ones that are not here, you don't know their answers. There weren't enough anyway with them. Oh, with them even? Okay. I mean, this is your last-ditch effort, so. I'm playing what that represents. Well, the mayor. Okay, so there seem to be a couple, maybe a person or two, who might be able to come but don't know. But the mayor asked me if there's one maybe. The mayor asked me if I would maybe talk about what this represents, and I think what you're meaning, mayor, is that if the council cannot find a time to hold this hearing in the time frame, then the decision of the Planning Commission stands. All right. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. All right. Council Member Kaye. Same topic. We looked at the Tuesday-Wednesday. Is there any possibility of having a hearing before then, a Monday night? Oh, I'm sorry. My mistake. Okay. All right. Thank you, Council Member K. Council Member Ford? Mayor, can I ask if it's possible? I know we don't want to prolong this meeting, but if there's an opportunity for us to be in touch with the council members that are absent, maybe their legislative aides may be able to relay a message to us to see who may be available. And then my second question is, is 6 o'clock the only time that we could have it? Could it be any other time that we possibly could meet? It appears that our only opportunity is Wednesday, March 13th. Is there other times that the council may consider? What happened there? All right. All right. I think the question, Council Member Ford, Vice Mayor, Yes, we could hold it any time that we can get a quorum, any time of the day or evening. Well, in that regards, and I'll be very honest, I missed a zoning hearing last Tuesday night. I just couldn't be here. But we've run into this problem far too many times here recently. And I just would feel bad if, based on the technicality, we could not provide this last bit of recourse for the impacted neighbors. And I would hesitate to recommend that we consider times perhaps not most convenient for the public, But I think it's more important that we have the meeting and then hope that the interested parties can rearrange their schedules to accommodate ours. For example, if we were to propose having it 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock that Wednesday, I know that may impact council members, but all in the spirit of trying to at least convene the meeting. Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Yes. If I could make one more comment. There were six of us who can be there on the 13th, and one of the absentee members, Council Member Akers, cannot be here the 13th. So that would make nine max who could come, which is not a quorum. I don't know if the 2 o'clock would make a difference. All right. Sir, how about that? How many can attend at 2 o'clock? Can, C-A-N, can attend at 3, 4, 5, 5. All right. All right. It appears that the question may be exhausted. All right. All right. We can move on then back to the council reports or to the council reports. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I have several items in lieu of last week's short, cut short meeting. Just want to follow up on a couple of things. One, as many of you know, the health care reform law goes into effect January 1, 2014, and many, many businesses will be affected in our community by the impact of that law. And I think one of those main businesses in our community is the government itself. So Mayor and CAO, I know Benefit Insurance Marketing has done analysis as to the impact of the Affordable Health Care Act on our own health care plan. So if they could come and give us a presentation at a work session and let us know as a council right before budget time what that impact for 2014 will be, because I think it will be substantial impact and we'll need to budget that impact in our upcoming budget. So I know they've done some analysis. So if they can come in the next couple weeks, that would be great if we could schedule that. And then the second item is we got a letter last week in regards to our CDBG money that's coming up for public comment starting yesterday, actually. And I was just curious, Mayor, if the administration, in lieu of our discussions on affordable housing, has considered using some of that CDBG money in the next year to get the affordable housing underway, the Homeless Commission's recommendations underway. I know a couple of other cities have utilized that money, the home money. Louisville, in particular, used it a couple of years ago. Are we looking at that and being an applicant for our own money? Or is that on the table or off the table? Have we considered that? Well, Chief Administrative Officer Sally Hamilton seems to be making her way up. I would comment. I think that we're examining, that's part of the project, the Homeless Commission, And the ongoing work, as recommended by the Homeless Commission, would be to examine revenue streams or potentials. Yeah, and you don't have to talk about today, but if we could just keep that on the table, because it's almost a million dollars of home money that could potentially help us do the same thing internally and get it going. Just would want to keep that on the table and wouldn't want the public to be part of that process as well. That's right. Irene and Bob discussed that. That's a good point. Very good. Thank you all. And then also we'd like to place into the planning committee a review of our exaction program. A lot of you have never seen a review of that or discussion, specifically how those rates are set as well as the accounting and how that accounting for the exactions are set. So I'd like to see that presentation placed into the planning committee so we can have that in the near future. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Stenet. Second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And then last but not least, as many of you know, tomorrow begins our hosting of the Sweet 16 here in downtown Lexington. I don't have to remind you how important of an event it is for our city. It's the second biggest revenue generator for Rupp Arena, outside, obviously, of UK basketball. So all the council members and members of, I know the mayor's staff will be down there, but Louisville is trying very hard to get this tournament. So we need everyone down there. We need everyone introducing themselves to the board of directors of the KHSAA and making it known that we want them here. We want them to be a part of it. I know our public safety officers do a great job in doing that and helping us as well, as well as all the other attendees. And thank you to Lori Houlihan and Glenn for helping us organize the council getting down there. We appreciate that. I know, Glenn, you pay a big role in helping that decision to keep it here in Lexington, so thank you for everything you're doing behind the scenes. But this has to be a group effort because Louisville will come hard and come strong next year when this is up for renewal. So we need everyone down there. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennett, especially for that last comment. Yes, sir. All right. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Just one quick item. The Council has a scheduled confirmation hearing. on Thursday, March the 7th at 3.45 p.m. for Mr. Bill O'Mara, who is the mayor's nominee for commissioner of finance. Thank you. Oh, one quick other thing I meant to say. I just wanted to congratulate the 14 firefighters who graduated. The mayor spoke at the graduation, and Council Members Clark and Henson were there. And it's always a big occasion when we have firefighter or police graduations or community corrections. So that was a good day. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And you were there, too. Yes, ma'am. All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Friday was such a good day for a lot of great events. but I received an invitation to attend Dr. Seuss' birthday at Family Care Center. And I just wanted to send out a big thank you because it was absolutely one of the, I guess it's the funnest event I've ever been to. And the kids were just so cute and the adults acting out the stories of Dr. Seuss. and then had the pleasure of going to the graduation for the firefighters. So that was a great day, and thanks for the invitation. Thanks, Council Member Henson. Any other council members wish to have an announcement or a report? Okay, then. All right, and that allows us to move on to the mayor's report. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? None of which. All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda, public comment for issues not on the agenda. Mr. Mundy says no. All right, then. Is there a motion to adjourn by Council Member Stenet? Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger. If there's no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We are adjourned.