# Urban County Council Work Session - March 19, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 19, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2923 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2923?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-03-19 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 12,953 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on March 19, 2013, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center, with Mayor Jim Gray presiding. The council addressed 12 agenda items, taking 9 votes and hearing 13 public comments from constituents. The meeting included two informational presentations—a Franchise Update and a PPACA Impact Analysis—along with several substantive approvals including requested rezonings, budget amendments, neighborhood development funds, and the General Government Committee Summary. The council also received reports from the Mayor and individual council members, and provided opportunities for public comment both on and off agenda items. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on March 19, 2013: - Linda Gorton - Chuck Ellinger - Steve Kay - Chris Ford - Shevawn Akers - Diane Lawless - Julian Beard - Bill Farmer Jr. - George Myers - Jennifer Scutchfield - Jennifer Mossotti - Kevin Stinnett - Harry Clarke - Peggy Henson - Ed Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The following motions were voted on and decided during the March 19, 2013 meeting: **Motion to approve the docket of requested rezonings and docket items** [timestamp: 00:05:49] - Moved by Stinnett, seconded by Gordon - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to place item 5 on the docket without public hearing** [timestamp: 00:06:19] - Moved by Scutchfield, seconded by Ellinger - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to place item 6 (zone change on 708–712 Henry Clay Boulevard) on the docket without public hearing** [timestamp: 00:06:51] - Moved by Farmer, seconded by Gordon - Outcome: Passed by voice vote - Condition: Provisional placement pending contact with objector **Motion to approve the summary of the work session on March 12th, 2013** [timestamp: 00:08:31] - Moved by Ellinger, seconded by Beard - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve budget amendments** [timestamp: 00:09:01] - Moved by Gordon, seconded by Massadi - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve new business items** [timestamp: 00:09:34] - Moved by Beard, seconded by Gordon - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve the Neighborhood Development Funds** [timestamp: 00:18:12] - Moved by Gorton, seconded by Myers - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve the summary of the March 5th meeting of the General Government Committee** [timestamp: 00:21:54] - Moved by Kaye, seconded by Akers - Outcome: Passed 5–3 - Votes for: Kaye, Akers, Gordon, Stinnett, Farmer - Votes against: Beard, Lane, Henson - Condition: Amendment to Section 4.104 of Council Rules to allow legislative review of certain routine items **Motion to adjourn** [timestamp: 00:26:33] - Moved by Stinnett, seconded by Ellinger - Outcome: Passed by voice vote ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting authorized the following financial actions and agreements: **Service Contracts** * Document shredding services agreement with Cintas Document Management for the Division of Community Corrections: $729.50 (L0079-13) * Five-year Maintenance Agreement with Routeware, Inc. for upgrades and technical support for the Routeware routing system: $488,268 (L0167-13) * Agreement with University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Medical Center for use of emergency room as clinical practice area for sexual assault treatment program: $3,000 (L0241-13) **Grant Applications and Awards** * Law Enforcement Service Fee Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2014 from Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet: $125,000 (L0242-13) * Street Sales Drug Enforcement Project continuation for FY 2014 from Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet: $75,000 (L0245-13) * Kentucky Recycling Grant Program application to Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet for purchase of dumpsters and rolloff containers for FY2014: $24,918 (L0257-13) * Violent Gang and Gun Crime Reduction Program (Project Safe Neighborhoods) Grant for FY 2014 from U.S. Department of Justice: $300,000 (L0258-13) * Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection Orders Program continuation application to U.S. Department of Justice/Office on Violence Against Women: $300,000 (L0259-13) * Safe Havens Project continuation for FY 2014 from U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women: $650,000 (L0260-13) **Infrastructure and Development** * Supplemental Agreement No. 5 accepting additional federal funding from Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for Clays Mill Road Improvements Project: $620,000 (L0246-13) * Red Mile Development Area Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Master Development Agreement with Lexington Trot Breeders Association LLC with reimbursable TIF structure and no upfront bonded money (L263-13) ## Public Comment The meeting included remarks from Mayor Jim Gray and several council members addressing a range of municipal concerns. **Recognition and Safety** Mayor Jim Gray [timestamp: 00:04:08] praised the Lexington hazmat teams for their response to a serious nitric acid leak in Nicholasville, highlighting their coordination across 11 counties and the importance of their emergency response work. Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 00:24:58] issued safety reminders for drivers and pedestrians during the NCAA tournament, emphasizing the need for cautious behavior in downtown areas and near the University of Kentucky. **Process and Transparency Concerns** Council Member Farmer raised multiple concerns about municipal processes. He expressed worry that the docket was moved too quickly without proper notification to objectors [timestamp: 00:07:26] and questioned the process for telecom franchises, expressing interest in public input on cable and telecom regulations [timestamp: 00:43:49]. Council Member Stinnett [timestamp: 00:22:26] opposed placing routine items on legislative review, arguing it undermines transparency, public record, and council accountability. In contrast, Council Member Beard [timestamp: 00:26:22] defended the legislative review proposal, contending it improves efficiency and saves time without reducing transparency or council power. **Financial and Operational Issues** Council Member Massadi [timestamp: 00:10:06] raised concerns about the financial risk of the Red Mile TIF, noting the struggling standard-bred breeding industry and the need for careful oversight. Council Members Beard and Lawless asked questions about employee benefits administration. Council Member Beard [timestamp: 00:09:46] inquired about COBRA coverage and how claims are handled, while Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 00:10:54] requested details on employees working over 30 hours but not eligible for benefits. **Local Concerns** Council Member Farmer [timestamp: 00:17:18] raised concerns about excessive tree pruning and invasive species removal in Eastbrook Court and Acton Park, citing loss of privacy and visual screening. He also [timestamp: 00:22:52] requested council support for the Salvation Army through the budget process, noting their role in housing families. Council Member Akers [timestamp: 00:23:52] announced upcoming meetings for the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association and a civic health roundtable at the University of Kentucky. Council Member Lawless [timestamp: 00:45:27] shared personal confusion about service providers and called for better clarity and oversight of telecom and cable franchises. ## Contested Items The March 19, 2013 meeting included three areas of significant disagreement among council members. **Legislative Review of Routine Items** The council voted 5-3 to amend Section 4.104 to allow legislative review of routine items. The three dissenting council members opposed the amendment on grounds of transparency and loss of council power. This split vote reflected fundamental disagreement about the appropriate scope of legislative oversight and the balance between streamlined processes and council authority. **Red Mile TIF Agreement** Council Member Massadi raised substantial concerns about the financial risk associated with the Red Mile Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement. Massadi cited the volatility of the horse industry as a primary concern, arguing that the council needed to exercise careful oversight of this financial commitment. This discussion highlighted disagreement over whether the TIF structure adequately protected the city's interests given the unpredictable nature of the industry sector involved. **Utility Franchise Process and Telecom Regulation** Council members expressed confusion and disagreement regarding the processes governing telecom and cable franchises. Multiple council members called for greater transparency in these negotiations and advocated for increased public input on future franchise agreements. This procedural dispute reflected concerns that the existing framework did not provide adequate opportunity for council review or public participation in decisions affecting utility services. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:05:00] No public comments were submitted during this portion of the session. ## Requested Rezonings / Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:05:49] The council approved the docket of rezoning requests during this agenda item. The discussion included motions to place items 5 and 6 on the docket without public hearings. Council Member Farmer raised concerns about the speed of the process, questioning the approach being taken with these rezoning requests. Key speakers in this discussion included Stinnett, Scutchfield, Farmer, and Gordon. The council voted to approve the docket as presented. ## Approval of Summary The council considered approval of the summary from the previous work session. [timestamp: 00:08:31] Key speakers on this agenda item included Ellinger and Beard. The summary was approved by the council without dissent. ## Budget Amendments The council approved a series of budget amendments totaling over $1.5 million during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:09:01]. The amendments addressed multiple operational needs across the organization. **Key Speakers** Gordon and Massadi led the discussion on the proposed budget amendments. **Amendments Approved** The approved amendments included funding for: * Fleet renovations * Hazmat equipment * Copier replacements * Grant matches **Outcome** The council voted to approve all proposed budget amendments. ## New Business [timestamp: 00:09:34] The council approved a series of new business items during this portion of the meeting. The agenda included contracts, grants, and a Red Mile TIF (Tax Increment Financing) agreement. Council Member Massadi raised concerns about the TIF agreement and its relationship to the horse industry. These concerns were noted during the discussion of the new business items. Key speakers on this agenda item included Beard, Massadi, Farmer, and Akers. The council voted to approve the new business items presented. ## Neighborhood Development Funds The council considered the Neighborhood Development Funds as agenda item VI.a [timestamp: 00:18:12]. Key speakers on this matter included Gorton and Myers. The council approved the Neighborhood Development Funds without dissent. ## General Government Committee Summary Council Member Steve Kaye presented a summary of the General Government Committee meeting held on March 5th [timestamp: 00:18:42]. **Main Action** The committee considered a motion to amend Section 4.104 of Council Rules to allow legislative review of routine items. The motion passed by a vote of 5-3. **Key Participants** Council Members Kaye, Farmer, Stinnett, and Beard were among those involved in the discussion of this agenda item. **Outcome** The amendment to Section 4.104 was approved, enabling the legislative review process for routine items as proposed. ## Presentation: Franchise Update David Barberie presented updates on proposed gas and electric franchise ordinances to the council [timestamp: 00:31:52]. The presentation covered the bidding process, franchise fees, and the regulatory framework governing these franchises. **Key Topics Covered** Barberie explained the mechanics of the franchise bidding process and outlined the fee structure associated with gas and electric franchises. He also detailed the regulatory framework that would govern these utility franchises. **Council Participation** Council members Beard, Farmer, and Lawless participated in the discussion alongside Barberie. **Outcome** The council approved the presentation and agreed to advertise the franchises, moving forward with the process outlined by Barberie. ## Presentation: PPACA Impact Analysis Benji Marrs presented an analysis of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (PPACA) impact on the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) [timestamp: 00:48:15]. The presentation examined multiple dimensions of the legislation's effects on the organization, including affordability considerations, qualified health plans, penalties, and financial implications. The analysis was designed to inform future budget planning for the government. Key participants in the discussion included Marrs, Stinnett, Massadi, and Henson, who engaged with the presented material and its implications for the organization. The presentation was received as informational, providing the council with data and analysis necessary for understanding how PPACA would affect LFUCG's operations and finances going forward. The council accepted the report for use in their budget planning processes. ## Council Reports During this agenda item, council members provided brief reports on upcoming meetings, civic events, and administrative updates. [timestamp: 01:15:43] The following council members contributed to the discussion: * Massadi * Gordon * Stinnett * Akers * Lawless The reports were informational in nature, with council members sharing updates relevant to their respective areas of responsibility or upcoming municipal activities. No formal debate or action items resulted from this segment of the meeting. ## Mayor's Report The council considered the Mayor's Report as Agenda Item VIII [timestamp: 01:26:02]. Gordon and Beard were the key speakers on this item. The council approved the Mayor's Report without discussion. No concerns were raised, and no debate took place during consideration of this agenda item. ## Public Comment - Issues Not on Agenda [timestamp: 01:26:33] No public comments were submitted for issues not on the agenda during this portion of the meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place an Ordinance changing the zone from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Highway Service Business (B-3) zone for property located at 3270 Richmond Road on the docket without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place an Ordinance changing the zone from a Single Family Residential (R-1C) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for property located at 708-712 Henry Clay Blvd. on the docket without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the 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 (NDF) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the March 21st, 2013 Council Meeting, a resolution amending Section 4.104 of the Council Rules and Procedures - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor’s Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the work session of the Council. I'll call the meeting to order. And before we get started, just a quick but a relevant and significant announcement I'd like to make. Last week, we received a note of thanks from Shane Ratliff. Now, Shane is with the State Division of Incident Management in Frankfurt, And he complimented the response of our hazardous material teams to the leak of nitric acid in Nicholasville on March the 11th. Two of the city's hazmat teams worked with teams from 11 counties to protect the Bluegrass region. Battalion Chief Greg Bayer tells me this is one of the most serious incidents our hazmat teams have responded to in a very long time. and that was confirmed by Shane Ratliff in Frankfurt. Nitric acid is a lethal chemical. In this case, the wrong materials were combined in a manufacturing facility in Jessamine County between Lexington and Nicholasville. So here's a tribute and a praise and thanks from all of us to those who responded from Lexington. And the officers include Battalion Chief Bayer, Battalion Chief Paul See, Major Todd Samuelson, Lieutenant Adam Morgan, Lieutenant Marty Wells, Lieutenant Kelly Smith, Captain Brian Dawson, Captain Trevor Cox, and Captain Marshall Thompson, plus 21 firefighters. So thanks to all and our appreciation to all. First on our agenda today is public comment for issues on the agenda. And Mr. Mundy, has anybody signed up? All right, sir. Thank you so much. And next on our agenda is any motions regarding rezonings and the docket. Is there a motion to approve the docket? Council Member, motion by Council Member Stennett. Is there a second on the docket? Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Okay. We're on the docket, right, and then we need to go. Council Member Scutchfield. Regarding number two, I have a motion to place on the docket number five without public hearing. Second. Motion by Council Member Scotchville, second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there a discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Who else is? Is there a motion on number six? Council Member Farmer. Mayor, with regard to item number six, this is a zone change on 708 to 712 Henry Clay Boulevard. And I'm going to make a motion at this time to place it on the docket for Thursday night without a public hearing. However, in a strange turn of events, this issue was only placed on Legistar, quote-unquote, on Friday. and planning staff had let the objector know that they would have the opportunity to address us and ask for a public hearing. And since they told that person that it might not be until April 9th that that might happen, I'm just placing this on there provisionally. They're going to contact the objector and see if they do carry an objection that would make us want to have a public hearing. But I think it's just good disclosure to say the wheel's got moving a little fast and we're going to be off next week anyway. But I'll make a motion to put number six on without a public hearing. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. Council Member, is it discussion? Council Member Stennett. Council Member Farmer, will we get the minutes? Because I don't think we've received the minutes. Is that correct? I had to ask for them myself. Okay. So we will be getting a copy? Yeah. And it did pass without, I mean, I don't know what the line score was here, 10 to 0. but I think that's one of the things where the wheel turned a little too fast. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman for standing. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion here? None. Then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. Is there any further discussion on the motion to approve the docket? Okay. All right. Then hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The motion carries. Next on our agenda is the approval of the summary. Is there a motion to approve the summary of the work session on March 12th? Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Second by Council Member Beard. 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 budget amendments. Is there a motion? Move approval. Motion by Vice Mayor Gordon to approve. Second by Council Member Massadi. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. 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 new business. Is there a motion to approve? Approval. Now that was precisely. Approval together. It's precisely in synchronization. Okay, flip a coin. I believe you got to last. Motion by Council Member Beard. Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Mayor Gordon. All right, is there any discussion on the motion on new business? Yes. Council Member Massadi. Yes, sir. I have a question on the last item I, the authorization to execute the Red Mile development area with TIP increment financing. Is that something that was, it looks like it's got a history since, what, 2010 and then 2012? I just wanted some more information on it, if I could. I'm sorry, Council Member Masati, which one was that? It's the last one, I. Here comes Mr. Atkins. Oh, okay. L. Oh, I'm sorry. I was looking at L. My mistake. It's an L. I'm sorry. Thank you, ma'am. All right. Mr. Atkins. We amended the original 210 ordinance, which is the latter date stated. And then this agreement just puts into place how the money will flow, the process for the Red Mile, asking for their reimbursement. Okay. I guess my concern is, and then Counsel Lynn Ellinger brought this up a couple of weeks ago when we were talking about, I think in our agricultural workshop that we were provided to the university, that standard-bred breeding and just the standard-bred business in general is somewhat, I hate to say it, but struggling. And when I see that we're spending the money with the developer on remodeling a grandstand and luxury boxes and providing entertainment around that venue, I just have some concerns about that. Well, keep in mind this is a reimbursable TIF, so there's no bonded money up front. So basically we're housing the accounts until they hit the activation point. Then we're starting to reimburse them upon their receipts back to us so that we're not fronting any money. That's what I wanted to know because I do have some concerns about that. And as far as the project, I think you have the developer. It's Mr. Costas. Is it Mr. Costas? Joe Costa. Or is it the owners? Joe Acosta is the president of the... He is employed by the owners, correct? Right, and he is one of the owners as well. Okay, I was under the misunderstanding that he wasn't, but I just wanted to ask about that. And it is also somewhat predicated on this instant racing, is that correct? Yeah, and that's dependent on what the state courts eventually... The Supreme Court, isn't it, that would do that? And wouldn't Keelan have to be involved in that as well, from what I understand? Keelan is their partner in that aspect. Right, so they'd have to have, because I think there was, what, two parimutuel licenses in that and only one entity to get it, so they'd have to partner together. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that I understood all the facts in this, because I know how the horse industry can be a little volatile, and it seems that we've got this as part of that component, and I wanted to make sure that if we're anticipating that we're spending any money, that we, of course, are recouping it, that we are doing it in the right way. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Massadi. Council Member Stendon? Not on this issue, but on another one. Thank you, Mr. On item B, on the route wear for the solid waste GPS system, just want to clarify a couple things, Commissioner Maloney. One, why are we doing five calendar years, and if so, how are we going to budget that? to why five years? And do we bid this out to get a five-year? I know we do a long-time contract, long-term, but five years is a little long. Is this the only product out there, and that's why we're just going to not bid it and stick five years? Commissioner Mullally, would you introduce our guest? What we have is five years. We're going to show a savings. And Brittany will be glad to show you why we're doing the five years. We do have a savings from what we had originally, so I'll let her explain to you all those questions you have to ask. And Brittany's in charge of our route. Okay, thank you. The primary reason we decided to go with the five-year maintenance agreement was in a cost savings of approximately $79K in the first year. They're planning on increasing their cost for software support to $69 per unit per month. So we have 137 units currently, and we want to ensure that over the course of the five years, those units continue to get the supportive maintenance that they need. Okay, and then is this the only sole source provider for this type of equipment and software maintenance? Well, what we have currently, yes, because we've created a lot of customizations and integrations between different software components, and they did some custom software development to integrate those. So what happens if they go out of business, or in five years we choose not to use them? So we have to start all over? My goal is if they go out of business, I'm getting the source code. You're getting what? I'm sorry. The source code, the programming that it took to develop that, so that we can either outsource it with a local vendor to help us do the software. So do we own the software, LFUCG, or do they own it? They own it right now, but if they were to go out of business, we would need to create an agreement with them to receive the source code. Can we not create that with this agreement, put that in this contract, that in the event they go out of business, it's our software? I believe we probably could. I think that they would be agreeable to that. I don't think they think they're going out of business anytime soon. Well, they could be bought, but they could be bought by somebody else. I'm not saying they would. But we're in a world of acquisitions and mergers every day, so they were bought by somebody else that we didn't use their platform any longer. There's a lot of ifs. I've been around long enough to know it can happen. PeopleSoft is a perfect example of what's happened to us. So I'm a little leery of five years, but it makes sense on the savings. If we can add something in there, it's our software, because when we let someone else own the thing we depend on, it creates me a little more anxiety. I completely understand. We can add a line item to it and have it adjusted on the routeware side to say if there was a case that the business was terminated in the course of the five years that we would have the software. And is there not a way to do fiscal years versus calendar so we can match it in the budget? Because right now we're going to have to split every year over two budgets. Let me find out if we can do that. Okay, just make it easy to track. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. No problem. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Brittany. Council Member Akers. Just a follow-up question, Richard. Wait a minute. Richard. Is this company a sole source provider? I mean, at that rate, I assume that we've, like Kevin asked, Council Member Senate asked if we bid it out, and are they a sole source provider, or were there other options? About three, four years ago, it was bid out, and the RFPs went out, and they were considered the best option at that time. During the course of the past three years, they've done a lot of integrations with our current systems, with some internal pieces with our GIS system, with a lot of the other ones. So at the current time, they are the only ones that we have that can support what we've done with our integrations. And $69 per truck per month is the best deal we can get. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. I do want to follow up. We do have the route wearing Kevin committee next, I believe, in May, and we'll be able to break down. Brittany will be here to break those down for you and show you what he's. And I think you all will be amazed on what they were able to do with the route we're and just do the big improvement we've made in the last few years. Council Member, thank you. Thanks, Council Member Akersh. Council Member Farmer. Just briefly, Mayor, item K, I'm assuming that that new business item is basically what we're going to have in our presentation form here shortly in terms of the franchises, because this would be to cover electric and gas. You got a thumbs up on that? I may save questions for then. Thank you. Mr. Barbary. All right. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Any other council members wish to speak to new business? All right. If not, then we can take a vote on the motion to approve. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Next on our agenda, continuing business and presentations. And first is the NDF. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Second. Motion by Council Member Ellinger. Second by Council Member Stennett. 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 is the summary of the March 5th meeting of the General Government Committee by Councilmember Steve Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. The first item on the, well, before I talk about the first item on the agenda, I want to note that the attendance does not reflect people who are absent and will make that correction to the minutes of the meeting. Then the first item on the agenda was the approval of the summary, and that was approved unanimously. The second item was an amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules. This is an amendment that would place some items on the Council docket in a category called Legislative Review that would not require them to have two readings. Linda George from the Law Department presented the amendments that had been made since the last meeting. There was a motion to approve. There was then some conversation and some concerns about the transparency. Some questions asked about how it would affect certain kinds of actions of the Council. There was a suggestion that some of these individual items be lumped together. There was then some conversation about each of the items and whether they all needed to be on the list of things that would be on the legislative review. There was a motion to delete from the proposal items B, C, and J, and that motion passed 6-2. There was then a motion to strike sections A, E, and I. That motion died for lack of a second. The motion was then approved, I mean the proposal was then approved on a vote of 5-3. And I'll have a resolution about that when I finish this report. The next item on the agenda was the website linking policy. Scott Shapiro presented that. This is an update. This has been an ongoing conversation with the General Government Committee. There was some conversation about policies relating to external website building, some conversation about policies regarding logos and linkages. and Mr. Shapiro said he would work on the final set of recommendations and get the policy completed and that we could take that then out of committee. Next item on the agenda was the CAO policy number three regarding fleet right sizing and Jamshid Baradaran, the director of fleet services, came to present that to council. Some conversation, some questions for him. Then he said he's proposing a 10-year transition plan, reducing the current reliance on bond funds for fleet to an interval revolving funding source, which will save some money for government. There was no motion taken on any of that discussion. We then removed two items from committee, and there was a motion to adjourn the meeting. Now I have a motion to make. So I move to place on the docket for the March 21, 2013 Council meeting a resolution amending section 4.104 of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council Rules and Procedures. So move. Second. Motion by Councilmember Kaye, second by Councilmember Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Is this discussion on the motion? Councilmember Stennett. Councilmember Farmer, are you? I think that's from the last, or are you up for this? I'll wait for it. Oh, you won. Okay. If you're up for this one, I thought mine is showing. It did. I don't know why it did that. I think a couple of the council members are going to comment to this and have maybe more background than I do. And I've watched some of this on TV because I wasn't here for some of the meetings. And I think that this is not like calling somebody for a date, and they tell you they're going to go on a date. Maybe they're going to go on a date, and finally you call, and they say, I don't want to go on the date. And that's where I am with this. I just don't want to do this. I don't see what good comes from this. I think this verbiage that the mayor may place the following items on the work session agenda and the legislative review, and it's a fine thing for the mayor to do, but I think right now those things come to us, and that's where they properly rest. And I think, and again, I don't know the details, but I believe we have changed, quote, unquote, our font size in the paper so that whatever we're trying to obviate by changing our rules and methods has been done so at least budgetarily in terms of what is advertised now. It's done. And I'm just, I've not been convinced here, and I'm just not a believer, and I will be voting negatively. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. This item actually came to Council about four and a half years ago. I think you were even vice mayor, Mayor, at the time we started. It feels like a long time ago. It has been a little while. Yeah, a little while. So, you know, the two premises behind this was one, efficiency, to speed up our meeting times. I think that's been corrected. I think our meetings are very efficient. I don't think our goal should be actually to get out of here as fast as we can, but do the business that needs to be done. The second item was to save money. By printing less in the newspaper, the theory behind that was we could save money. Well, on behalf of our law department who did a great job and our council clerk in negotiating with the Herald-Leader, we have reduced those costs. So we've solved efficiency. We've solved reduction of costs. And last but not least, why does this council want to give up their legislative duty and power? Why do we want to do that? Not to say that this mayor or any other mayor has a different agenda, but why would we want to give up our right to approve things, vote on it, and why do we want to give up the right for people to see it on the docket, be part of the public record, permanent record, and be transparent? So this hurts all those things. So I won't support it. As I said during the committee discussion, I don't think it's necessary, and I appreciate Council Member Farmer's commentary as well, and I look forward to the rest of it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I was also one who voted no in committee, and I want to just agree with some of the comments of Councilmember Farmer and Councilmember Stenet. I had concerns all along the way with, well, the fact that our work session is not official record. And so the more things that we take off of the Thursday night official record, I think the more difficult it is for our citizens to figure out what they want to figure out. And I know the clerk, council clerk, worked on some of those things, but I'm still not going to support this. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Gordon? Council Member Beard? I, too, for all the same reasons that I've already heard about, will not support this. All right. Council Member Kaye? Thank you, Mayor. I know that there's been some resistance, and Council Member Lane, who initially proposed this, is not present, to assist me. Maybe by design. He was here. That may be. But just to explain a little bit, this went through, I believe, three successive drafts in committee. So it has been discussed three times in committee. We finally did get it out at, whenever I said a five to two vote. But I believe that the issues, the concerns that have been raised don't strike me as, frankly, compelling, and I'll tell you why. The first thing is that we're not giving up any duty. We're not giving up any power. We're not giving up any right to approve. What we're doing is taking a number of items. at this point, I don't know how many are left, nine or ten categories, that at this moment the clerk reads while, frankly, we don't pay a lot of attention because we've already read it and it's already been through a whole process. So what this proposal does is it says for those items that are routine, that are small change, that are things that are already in the budget, that are whatever, instead of being read twice and having that take up 15, 20 minutes, half an hour, whatever it takes, those items are placed on a list for legislative review. Any council person can take, and it comes to the work session, any council person without objection can move an item from the legislative review onto the docket. So you see something you think needs two reads, just say, I'd like it to be on the docket, and it goes on automatically. So there's no loss of ability to review, no loss of right to approve, no loss of anything. It also, it's not, when it gets on the docket, it will be listed like the mayor's report. So it is in the official record of the meeting. It's not in the same way. But the supporting materials are available in the same way that they are for something that's read twice now in council. So I've been interested in this because I believe that when the clerk is reading, and there's a very long list, which there often is, and they are mostly routine items, anybody who visits this body can come to the conclusion that the council is not paying attention to its own business. That's the appearance. Now, the good news is it doesn't get broadcast because the clerk is on the monitor, but anybody who's in chambers will note that the council members are not exactly paying rapt attention. I think this gives the wrong impression. We often have, we just had two weeks ago, three weeks ago, a scout troop, and they came and watched us on a Thursday night. And what they watched was the clerk reading for about 35 minutes while council members chatted, walked around, did whatever they wanted to do. I think it gives a bad impression. There's no loss, as far as I'm concerned, of transparency. There's no loss of responsibility or power. We simply save about 20 minutes of reading, and we spare the clerk that. So that's the case I made in committee. We got the committee to support this going forward. I understand that there are council members who see it differently. I respect those views. But I hope that the balance of council will approve putting this on the docket. and moving it forward so that we can improve the way in which this council functions. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member K. Any other council members wish to speak to the motion? All right. Hearing Council Member Beard. Council Member Stennett, I'll take the first council meeting we have. You take the second one, and we'll just go put them back on again. And we can just rotate that amongst ourselves and get that taken care of if it passes at all. All right. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Any other Council members? Okay. All right. Then hearing none, we can take a vote. All in favor of the motion, please indicate by saying aye and voting electronically. and those who oppose nay and voting electronically where's council member lane when i need them does that mean i So. So. I didn't see yet. So it passed. OK, I didn't. The vote reflects passage of the motion. All right. I thought it was. Thank you, Council Member Kaye, for your summary report. And next on our agenda is the presentation on the franchise, an update on the franchise by David Barbary of our law department. Mr. Barbary, thank you. Good afternoon. I have a brief presentation for you all, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. I think it's starting on page 47 of your work packet as well. what you all have already on the agenda under new business are two different utility franchise ordinances that are recommended for approval and passage we will be asking for suspension of the rules on thursday night because you all are getting ready to go on break but one of them is for natural gas and the other one is for electric there are three existing electric franchisees right now there's kentucky utilities there's bluegrass electric and there's clark energy. There's two existing gas franchises, Columbia Gas and Delta Natural Gas. Once the ordinances are adopted, and this is required by the Constitution, they're advertised out for bid. That's one of the reasons we want to go ahead and get two readings. While you all are on your recess, these will be advertised in the newspaper, and when you come back, it should be back in front of you all for final approval of the people that bid on them when you get back from break. and we expect it to be the same five utilities that I just mentioned. This is a reminder that the Public Service Commission is the entity that has exclusive jurisdiction over utility rates and services. So sometimes you get into discussions with the utilities about what's appropriate to put in the franchise and what's not, whether it ends up being a rate or service type issue. Cable television is an aside, is not considered a utility by the PSC. They're only regulated at the federal level. The PSC is also the one that establishes where these franchisees are allowed to provide their service. In other words, you have to have approval from that body in order to provide this type of utility service in Fayette County. A utility is required to have the consent of the local government in order to place its facilities within the public rights of way or on public property. Essentially what you get out of the franchise ordinance is this is akin to a rental fee on our public property for them placing their facilities in them. It allows them to avoid having to obtain easements to do this and pay separately every time they want to put a facility on public property. It's the legal mechanism basically for use of the public right-of-way. They are non-exclusive. they are advertised once again and bid out as an ordinance or resolution we sit there for months and in this case I think it was years negotiating back and forth exactly what these should say with the utilities that we expect to bid on them in advance legally under the constitution they are not allowed to be any longer than 20 years in length and that includes any type of extension and generally speaking they are uniform in their content as to the type of utility. They're pretty consistent across the utilities, but if you look at the one for gas, it will be identical for both of the gas companies. The one for the electric companies will be identical as to the electric companies. This is a pretty big issue for you all. We are compensated through a franchise fee. And what you need to understand is we come up with a definition of the gross revenues that it's going to apply to. This is a direct pass-through on the bill. So when you look at your bill, when you open it up, there will be a line item at the bottom. I think one of them is the school tax, and the other one is the local franchise fee. So this is directly passed through to the consumer. So whatever amount it gets set at is what gets passed through directly to the customer. Once again, it's a separate line item on the bill. It's currently set, as we're sitting here today, at 3%. There's a very small rider that I think only Columbia Gas is exercising right now where we have a permitting program under Chapter 17C of the Code of Ordinances, and they are allowed to add those permitting fees on top of the franchise fee. I think Columbia Gas is the only one that's doing that right now. So if you look at a Columbia Gas bill, theirs is normally like 3.1% or something like that. We adopted a comprehensive regulatory scheme that pertains to how you do street cuts and all of those kinds of things in Chapter 17C of the Code. That's incorporated into these franchises. So any time that gets changed by you all, that would carry over into these franchise agreements going forward. The franchise fee remains at 3% for now. What's put in front of these ordinances is you all would have the ability, and it has to go to council under the law in order to make this happen, you all could raise it at any point in time to an amount not to exceed 5%. Right now it's drafted so that if nothing else happens going forward, it would stay at the 3% automatically. What you also have to take into consideration is it has to go through the PSC process because it appears on a bill as a tariff. So that process normally takes about 45 to 75 days to go into effect after you all would establish the rate. Because it's at 3% now, if it stays at 3% going forward, that timeline doesn't apply because it's just going to stay at the same rate. But if there was a raise to that fee, it would normally take about two months after that raise was adopted for that to actually show up going forward on the bills. The fee language now includes, through negotiation, some additional protection to make sure that whatever existing revenue sources we have today continue to be included going forward as part of the franchise fee. And it also includes a provision so that a lot of any type of new regulated service that they might come up with that doesn't exist today, we would have the option of having the franchise fee apply to that going forward. what we have proposed in these franchises is it would be a five-year franchise and then we would have the ability to extend it for up to two additional terms of five years each that would be at the discretion of the council we would come to you all in year four kind of give you a status update on how the franchises are working whether we think anything needs to be materially changed If the answer to that was no, the recommendation going forward would be to just go ahead and extend existing franchises out. We included a provision that the utilities are to appear before the council and provide information related to franchises upon request, and we've moved towards monthly payments in all instances in which the utility systems will support it. And now whatever questions you all have, I'm happy to answer. All right. Thank you, David. So Council Members Beard and Farmer and Acres have signed on. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. David, do you know off the top of your head if we have ever raised that 3% or if so, when? Years ago when I started doing this, which would probably be in the early 2000s, most of the franchises were at 2%. I think technically KU's was at 1.9 or some odd number like that. And I think at that point in time there was a movement to make all of the franchises the same rate. So sitting here today with the exception of cable and telecom, which have that separate excise tax now, all of the franchises today, it is 3% as we're sitting here today. The water franchise is 3%, the electric franchise is 3%, and the gas franchise is 3%. So 3% is as high as we have ever gone on a franchise. The cable franchise before the Telecom Act was passed was raised to 5% by the council for the short period of time. I think it was two months, six months, something like that, before that bill went into effect, so that we could maximize our ability to obtain revenue under the excise bill that got passed. Second question, do you have any idea what the school board does? The school board, it's a different animal. They simply have a statute that has a tax, and the tax is 3% by law. So rather than having a franchise fee for use of the public way, they have a statute that requires the utility to pay a 3% tax for providing the utility service. So legally, theirs is a tax. Ours is a fee. In application to your customer, it looks exactly the same. They're going to see it as a tax either way. But legally, ours is technically a fee and not a tax. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Beard. Councilman Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. In working on, because you all worked on these for a long time, didn't you? I mean, because we had to do some. Longer than I care to recall, yes. We have been through several, there have been several extensions of a shorter term duration franchise with the existing terms. Anything drastically different? This is for gas and electric only. Well, the main difference was for the first time that I can recall, we had them audited. We had the revenues audited to make sure we were getting what we were supposed to get. And the results of the audit were favorable, but the auditor made recommendations on additional fees that we could try to capture. So we had a great deal of negotiation back and forth on those additional fees. And I'll give you some examples. Some of them were out the door because one of them that you could try to legally try to go after would be something called a fee-on-fee, where you just apply the franchise fee on top of itself. That didn't make a whole lot of sense because it looks like a double tax, but arguably you can make that argument. We had other things where one of the main pushbacks from the utilities, which is a legitimate issue, is if they don't currently have it as part of their tariff, they have to build it into their PeopleSoft equivalent system. So a lot of the pushback we got was it's going to cost us perhaps $100,000 to implement this for you, and you may only see $10,000 a year more in franchise fee revenues as a result of us implementing this. How much sense does that make? So after kind of digesting those types of comments, we backed off of this stuff that was already in place. Now what we've done going forward is if they come up with something they don't already have, that same issue wouldn't exist. They could put that in their system at the time they came up and designed the new rate, and there wouldn't be any extra cost to doing that. So the thought was if they come up with some new way of providing the service within the life of this franchise, we would have the ability at that point in time to add the franchise fee onto that new type of service. In the five-year extensions, does anything particular happen or change? If you all decided to go ahead and extend it another five years, it would be upon identical terms, be the same terms that are in front of you all on the ordinances today. Then I've had some constituent input, particularly about the telecommunications franchise. Is it proving to be? The telecom one has been on a separate track because we've been trying to figure these ones out and finalize them. We will start getting into negotiating that one more. That's a little different animal because the fee is not even part of the discussion. So if there are concerns about what that needs to include, we'd certainly like to hear them because we really haven't sat down at the table with the telecoms to start negotiating that really yet. I'll solicit some input for you because I think there's some people who have been very interested in that one. And so this gets gas and electric done. I'm asking about telecom. The only other one left then would be the other one. And we are negotiating the cable franchise. We have an outside counsel on that one. That's on a separate track. Linda Ayn is representing us on that. And we are going back and forth with Time Warner on what the content of the new cable franchise would look like. And that's really the one I was referring to when I said telecommunications. I'm sorry. Yeah, there's a cable one, and then we have multiple telecom ones. Your main telecom one right now is Windstream. So Windstream's on a telecom franchise along with three or four smaller telecom entities. Right now, I think they're keeping the Insight name as far as I know, but it's owned by Time Warner. Time Warner is the only cable company franchise we have right now. I think people have interest in this. So, yes, whatever you all hear about that, we'd like to know so that we can incorporate those into the negotiations on the cable. And then the other one left then would be the water franchise? The water franchise is going to be up for renewal in May of 2015. So that will be a fun one. Yes, sir, it will. Save the best for last. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Lawless? I too would like more information on the telecable. I personally have had an experience with them last week, and it is very confusing. I have no idea who's providing the service or what's what. Yeah, and I think that I don't want to speak for Commissioner Hamilton, but I think we're going to designate someone probably within the administration to kind of spearhead like the complaint type things so that we can get a handle on what all those might be to make sure that we try to address them going forward. Yeah, and I don't know so much that it's a complaint. It just feels very confusing and somewhat, you know, we have to get in there and change these things right away. and then it's somebody else so that would be helpful if i'm confused i'm sure others are too or maybe not thank you sure thank you councilman lawless councilman beard thank you again mayor um i got a letter last week from time warner welcoming me to uh their uh their company and uh so i think probably they are going to move their name at some point. I was really disappointed that the president of the company didn't go by my house and do this in person because I'm probably the highest payer of fees that there is. And I'm not kidding. Anyway, I think they're going to finally raise their head and they've owned it for some period of time where they've been in some kind of They actually closed, I think, either late last year or early this year. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Any other Council members wish to offer comment or question to Mr. Barber on the presentation? And you all will see these again, once again, after break, when we come back with hopefully the five incumbents we have as the bid respondents, and then you will formally approve the franchises at that point in time as far as the franchise grudels. Thank you, David. Thanks. All right. Okay. Next on our agenda is the presentation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Impact on Lexington. Mr. Benji Mars. Mr. Mars, this engaging subject is all yours. Thank you. Oh, Council Member Stennett. I just want to say a couple words. One of the reasons why I asked for this presentation is because there's a lot of decisions we have to make in this upcoming budget, but I think it's important for the employees watching and for the council to know that there will be changes to health care as we know it. It won't be the same. we'll have to make decisions on changing our benefit pools, possibly maintaining a minimum level in order not to be in violation. We'll have to change the opt-out, the employees that opt out of our plan. We may be penalized because they opt out. So there's a lot of opportunity. I know Benji and his company are experts at this, and this is one of the reasons why we hire them. And this will accent it even more as he goes through his presentation and part of the value they're offering to us to analyze our plan and tell us what our dollar amount is at the end of the day. So thank you, Benji, for coming and doing this analysis. I know you're doing it for all your clients. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And let me just say as a footnote to what Council Member Stennett had to say, forgive me for not introducing Benji by noting that Council Member Stennett asked for this presentation. And, you know, it just reminds us again, just parenthetically, that the strengths of a council like this and the backgrounds, the technical backgrounds, often professional and business backgrounds, really have a big influence on decision-making and bringing the best assets to the table. Council Member Stenet knows a lot about this and has been engaged from the very beginning in the reforms that we've undertaken with you all. So, Mr. Morris. Thank you, Mayor Gray, Council Members. Appreciate the opportunity to be here today to speak with you on this engaging subject. This is a very complicated law. It impacts employers very differently. And we're going to kind of tell the end of the story before we get into it because of the complexity of the subject matter. It does get complex. What we want you to know offhand is that since March 23rd of 2010, so we're almost on the three-year anniversary of this law being signed into date, until 2014 there have been a number of things, issues that insurance carriers as well as employers have had to make changes to comply with the law. Even before January 1, 2014, of when the majority of what we've learned and heard about over these years actually goes into effect, there have been components that you all have had to adjust to already. So what we want to report before we get into our analysis is, one, that every employee as an individual must purchase insurance beginning January 1 of 2014. That's a mandate. They're going to have options to purchase insurance, whether that be eligibility through LFUCG or through a federal exchange, a state exchange, a co-op, private insurance. Everybody will have the opportunity to purchase insurance. LFUCG is an employer who employs more than 50 full-time employees, has mandates upon them to provide both qualified and affordable insurance to employees. And we've analyzed that, qualified and affordability. Those are two major components. And what we want to report before we get further into this is that LFUCG is compliant in all four plans with the regulations to date. Your plans are affordable to those eligible for a benefits pool, and your plans are qualified. So you're in great shape rolling into January 1 of 2014. There are some very particular details that as we're learning more about health care reform and PPACA, the Patient Protection Affordability Care Act, I'll refer to it as PPACA, that are given to us in greater clarity as time goes on. So what we want to make sure and keep you aware of as we go into the presentation is that your plans are qualified and affordable for those who have access to a benefits pool, and we'll talk more about that as we go into the presentation. So opening up, again, the individual mandate, beginning January 1 of 2014, every individual is required by law to purchase health insurance, a qualified plan, or face a tax penalty. As I mentioned before, every individual will have access to coverage. And the health plan options through the exchange that employees will have access to, there will be four plans to choose from. And they're labeled platinum, gold, silver, and bronze, four metal options. 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% that you see beside that is the actuarial value of the plans. And it's important that we talk about this today because you must offer at least one plan that meets the minimum standard criteria of a 60% actuarial value. And what that means is across a broad spectrum of people that that plan, the plan or the employer, whoever is providing that coverage covers 60% of the claims, and 40% is paid for by the individuals on average. It's not a true 60-40 plan. It's across the broad spectrum. The plan would pay 60. The employees or the individuals would pay 40%. And that's the minimum value to determine your plan, whether or not it's qualified. For individuals who have total household incomes of 400% of the federal poverty or less, They may qualify for a federal subsidy to purchase into the state or federal exchange. On the employer side, because you employ 50 or more employee full-time equivalents, employees working over 30 hours a week over the measured period of time, you're required to provide access to coverage or face a $2,000 penalty for not providing access to that coverage. The coverage must have a minimum value, must be qualified. It must meet that minimum threshold of 60%. We score all four of your plans, and we'll go through those here very shortly. Your employer's plan must be affordable. Affordable is defined as looking at your least costly qualified plan and ensuring that an individual does not have to pay more than 9.5% of their gross W-2 income for that plan over the course of a year. That's the affordability. Your least costly option to LFUCG employees is HSA 2, and even the tobacco rate after benefits pool and supplement, it's a zero cost for the single employee. Therefore, every employee of LFUCG who has access to a benefit pool has access to affordable coverage. So that is not an issue for LFUCG going forward. Again, to look at the exchange plans, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze, they score 90%, 80%, 70%, 60%. Your current plan options, PPO1, PPO2, HSA1, and HSA2, and the HSAs have the employer contribution into those health savings accounts factored as well, They score at 87%, 76%, 82%, and 75%. So you're well above the minimum 60% threshold. So your plans are both affordable and qualified. The question on the left, do current plans offer meat essential benefits? Yes, they do. And then as we get into the next slide, we're going to look at the affordability. because affordability is based on the least costly option, which we've highlighted in yellow, HSA 2, zero cost. Therefore, every employee with access to a benefits pool has access to both qualified and affordable coverage under health care reform. This is a look at the 400% of the federal poverty level in 2013 and where we're projecting it to be in 2014. And these are household incomes. So a family of four with a household income of $95,192 or less would potentially qualify for subsidized health care through the exchange plans. However, because LFUCG offers employees both a qualified and affordable option, no employee will qualify for a subsidized health care plan through the exchange. The reason why we stress those eligible for a benefits pool is because you do have individual employees working for LFUCG that do not have access to a benefits pool. They have access to your coverage, but they do not receive an employer contribution. So those employees will have to be looked at from the standpoint that their coverage to them is not affordable, and if they choose to purchase insurance through the exchange, which is subsidized, and not through LFUCG that's offered to them, then you may face a $3,000 penalty for each employee that chooses to opt out of your plan and purchase the exchange plan. And again, that's just for employees that do not have access to a benefits pool. This is a look at an example of what the cost will be through the subsidized exchange. For instance, if we looked at a single and then blue shaded, that's the type of coverage. If I want to purchase single coverage and my household income is $28,833, I'm at 250% of the federal poverty level. So defined within the law, my cost to purchase coverage through the exchange is 8.05%. That's purchased with after-tax dollars, so $2,321. That's an annual cost. With after-tax dollars, I have to earn $2,901 pre-tax to purchase that. So an employee with a benefit pool, and again, I apologize, that's for a silver-level plan, so a plan that scores at 70%. This is compared to your HSA-2 on the far right, a zero cost for an individual employee. However, if I don't have access to a benefits pool, based on the full premium, that employee would pay $4,638.60 to access your plan. So if they chose to go into the exchange and purchase an individual policy through the exchange and receive that subsidy, then LFUCG could potentially be paced with a $3,000 penalty for that situation. this is the employer mandate flow chart these are the questions you ask yourself to determine if you will be penalized or not first of all does the employer offer coverage and the answer is yes is that coverage qualified and affordable and that answer is yes for everyone with access to the benefits pool and then does the household income exceed 400 percent of the foot or poverty level if the answer is yes there's no penalty if the answer is no and the coverage is not affordable or qualified for that individual then you're potentially faced with a three thousand dollar penalty so coverage is affordable coverage is qualified for every full-time individual under p paca this is where lfucg is going to have to give some consideration it's based on the full-time employee requirements under ppac anyone averaging 30 hours weekly over a standard measurement period is considered to be a full-time employee and must be eligible for employer sponsored insurance no eligible employee must be required to wait more than 90 days counting employees this becomes extremely complicated and we're working with hr and with others to look at your measurement periods and your stability periods a measurement period is is a period of time that you set to which you evaluate employees. And for instance, with LFUCG, you have over 850 seasonal employees within parks and rec, and depending on your measurement period that you evaluate those employees, they may or may not be deemed eligible for your coverage based on the average number of hours worked during that time frame. So again, this gets very complicated, but your measurement period in 2013 for 2014 is a period of a minimum of six months and a maximum of 12 months. And your stability period, the period for which you make those people eligible, that average over 30 hours per week during that time, is a time frame exactly equal to your measurement period. And those periods of times will constantly rotate year over year over year. So if you choose six months for your measurement time, you could have up to a 90-day accounting period for which you account for and measure those employees, and then you would have to use the same time frequency for stability period of which you make them eligible for coverage. So that's the area of concern for LFUCG, is to evaluate the hours and the eligibility for those people as that time will rotate year over year. Current eligibility, based on the census we took in March, there were seven employees who were working over 30 hours per week and not eligible for benefits. In that case, potentially you're faced with a $2,000 penalty for each employee that works an average over 30 hours and is not eligible for benefits. You have 106 employees working less than 30 hours and are eligible for benefits. And then you have 41 employees who are working less than 30 hours and not eligible for health insurance. That's allowable under health care reform to be under 30 and not eligible. Financial implications. Again, LFUCG currently has the employees working in excess of 30 not eligible, and you're potentially faced with a $2,000 penalty for each employee who's not offered coverage. LFUCG has some employees who are benefits eligible and do not receive a benefits pool. This is a potential risk of $3,000 fine if the coverage is unaffordable and the employee elects to purchase through the subsidized exchange. As we look at benefit changes for 2012-2013, the benefit plans were designed to accommodate the updates mandated for PPACA. So minimum essential benefits, women's health, 100% preventative care, all those things have already been added to your plan. So we don't anticipate any additional cost projections for those things which some employers are faced with who are not compliant at this time. You will have two fees that you'll begin to pay in 2014. The first is a comparative effectiveness fee, and the price of that based on your renewal is $2 per member per year. And a member is any individual covered by your plan. So any employee, spouse, or child covered by your plan, you'll pay a $2 fee, and that's an annualized basis. The reinsurance fee is the biggest additional cost. You will pay that for 2014, 2015, and 2016. We've seen it estimated between $5.25 and $6.35 per member per month. So that will be an increased cost of between $340,000 and $411,000 beginning in 2014 for the reinsurance component. These are required notices and reporting on behalf of the employer and we'll not go through this in any detail. This is just to make you aware of human resources and their reporting requirements to report to IRS at the end of each year. The names, individuals, Social Security number, hours worked, coverage, elections, all those sorts of things will be recorded at the end of the year and reported to IRS to ensure compliance. So I'll go right to questions. That's appropriate. All right. Okay. Council Member, if you'll just sign up for questions or comments. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Mayor. Benji, thank you for this update. And as my colleagues, as you can see, this is a very complex topic. And you can imagine the number of businesses in our community that are going through this exercise to determine the impact. And if they're going through this exercise to determine the impact, what are they not doing? And we heard an economic forecast earlier about our net profits being down. Well, this is one exact reason why there's no job growth right now or a slowdown in it. Because businesses are scared. They're scared of the impact this will have. They're scared to hire new people because of that cost. And having this discussion helps us all be sensitive to those businesses in our community that are trying to make tough decisions. Do I add a job? It costs me more in health care. Do I take a job away to afford it? I had one business, a company alone, that has to lay off 50 people to afford their penalty in Lexington. I mean, you probably have hundreds like that in Lexington that have to make those type of decisions. So this is very real. It will affect our economic forecast going forward and next year's revenue numbers. So I'm just glad we're all having this conversation today. Benji, a couple things. One, the satellite agencies who are participating in our plan, how do they impact our calculation? like the transit or the parking authority? Those folks have been removed from here. They all have. There's a couple other people. The DDA, everyone's off. To my knowledge, I think all your sidelights. Only people in our plan now is just our employees. That's right. But are you sure there's nobody else you're missing? I'll go back through, but that's to my knowledge. I just want to make sure we have everybody, because that's enough reason to get them on their own plan. I just want to make sure we don't have any quasi-government agencies still using our plan. The last thing is the Humana administration costs. That's not going to change because we have a three-year contract? Right offhand, I'm not sure, but it's at least capped. It's capped. And if you could check on how long that's capped for, because that may have an impact, obviously once that contract's up, then it'll come back to us? Correct. The reinsurance component is not capped. The administration, I believe, is capped at 3%, but I'll confirm that for you. So that $400,000 you talked about for extra reinsurance costs, is that for next fiscal year? That's for next plan year, 2014, and that's not going to be a fee determined by Humana or Anthem. That's a federal government fee that you'll pay to them. Humana will collect it and remit it for you if you choose, but it's not a fee that goes into their coffers. It is to establish. So we won't be able to put it in this year's budget in April. We won't know what that is technically. we'll know a close range. We've got some TPAs printing one price and others printing another, so we've just given you a range. That's the need for the health care reserve fund, I think, that we talked about earlier. So it may be handy to have that back up. Thank you, Benji. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stenet. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Benji, I don't know if you can answer this question or someone from the administration. Based upon the information you provided, it looks like we have seven employees that would fall into that range for the penalty based on the March census. Is that correct? Yes, and that was just for one month. When you actually get into measuring, you're going to have to do at least a six-month period in your first year. Do you have any idea, I don't know if Commissioner Hamilton or the mayor, how many employees that would fall into that? I think your examination, and let me further that if I could, is to say that the counting of employees is something that is being clarified as we speak. We're gaining further clarification. It's something we've been talking about over the last couple weeks, understanding exactly how you count them, when you count them, the measurement periods, the stability periods. It's very confusing, but we're looking now at snapshots of how this might impact you going forward. Well, these are new measurements, so you're introducing a new protocol entirely. Correct. Right. Okay. So to get there, I think what, and it's a good question, Council Member Sadi, is a good question. And what you're saying is that to get to those numbers and to those answers, you're actually having to define roles in a way that may not have been defined before. That's correct. In the way that this legislation is requiring those roles to be defined. I'm just interpreting it. Is that correct? You're absolutely correct. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Council Member Sidi. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Managing, what about people who go on COBRA? Do they continue at the same levels that they had before, or is there another totally other pocket that they? Once an employee becomes eligible for COBRA, They will no longer have employer-sponsored health insurance, but they'll have an employer plan that they continue at the employer rate plus 2%. So they'll have the option of continuing that and paving that cost on their own, or they will have access to purchase insurance through the exchange, whether subsidized or unsubsidized. So really they'll virtually remain unimpacted. And is that handled by us? Is it paid through us, or is it paid through some outside entity? COBRA, you actually have a third-party administrator, which is Ceridian, of which they handle the collection of that premium and they remit that to you. Anybody that's on COBRA is your responsibility in terms of claims, in terms of expenses. But you do have a third-party entity that is doing billing and some administration for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Mayor. Can you give me an example of an employee who would be working more than 30 hours a week and not be eligible for benefits? Somebody else might be able to give you a more specific example, but an example of somebody that might have been hired part-time and is just getting extra hours. Does anybody know that? That would be a question. And then the 106 employees working less than 30 hours but are eligible for benefits. From that, we took a census count from LFCCG. I'd kind of like to know who fits in those two populations. And if it's okay, we might report back to you on that? No, I want to know right this minute. I want to know their names and their Social Security numbers, where they're working and what they're doing. No, yes, that will be fine. I'm just curious as to who those populations might be. And the other thing is in this is they're still refining this legislation. Absolutely. As we speak. One of the issues that seems to be of contention is allowing associations and et cetera to form their own insurance group. Do you know what I'm talking about? Certainly. There are insurance out there who have gone through a legal process to become treated as a large group employer for oversimplification to purchase their insurance as an association. And by doing so, does that have an impact on the high-risk pool? And, for instance, well, that's probably another conversation. I'd like to talk to you about that because I think that we have faced that in the state with our high-risk insurance pool where the state legislature has used excess funds and drained it off to the point that our high-risk pool is very, very expensive. So I'm curious about that. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I've got a quick question, B&G. The percent that an employee, you know, there's a cap on the amount of the premium for insurance, correct? There's a cap on the amount that an employee has to pay their portion after the employer contribution to be deemed affordable. And that is premium. It doesn't take into effect the deductible or... Correct. In fact, it doesn't, well, there's two components of evaluation. One is qualified plan, which deductible certainly impacts qualification of a plan. It has to meet a certain criteria, a certain level of benefits. And in addition to that, it must be affordable, meaning after the employer has made their contribution or benefits pool, then what's left that comes out of the employee's paycheck can't exceed 9.5% of their gross W-2 income. for single coverage regardless if they elect family coverage of ppo1 it's evaluated based on the least costly qualified plan that you offer thank you you're welcome excuse me thank you council member henson all right um that's all the council members who've signed on so mr marsh thanks very much thank you if it's okay mayor we've got just a basic primer tutorial that we'd like to distribute that's okay just general education sir thank you very much all right okay this allows us to move on to council reports so if council members who wish to offer a council report please just sign on beginning with council member Thank you. That was her remaining time. Just a couple of announcements. Stonewall Neighborhood Association is meeting Monday night, March 25th at 7 p.m. at the Stonewall Elementary School. And I also want to thank and commend the police for strictly enforcing the city's scalping ordinance for the NCAAs coming up at RUP. That's all, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Massadi. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. There has been some good work done since the budget and finance meeting by Sally and Stacy and Janet Graham and John Maxwell. And what we're going to do is on April 11th, we're going to cancel or postpone the workshops that were scheduled. One was the police disciplinary process, and one was the compensation study. And I appreciate particularly Commissioner Graham and Director Maxwell and our CAO for working that out. And we're going to schedule the fund balance workshop on April 11th at 3.30. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Just want to announce Eastland Parkway Neighborhood Association will have their bi-monthly meeting next Tuesday night, the 26th of March at 630 at Christ Center Church. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stennett. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. Gosh. I need to talk about a couple of things that have gone on in the 5th District over the last little while. How do you feel? And it has to do with, I don't know, you know in our city you have to have a permit to cut a tree down. But evidently to prune a tree or to take out a so-called invasive species, you don't. So earlier, either this year or late last year, at the intersection of East Brook Court and where really old Mount Tabor and alumni come together, there had been some pine trees there. that kind of protected the entrance to the cul-de-sac. And I told the CAO I was going to make these comments, and she doesn't need to come up necessarily and talk about it, but I just think we need some help either in Parks and Recreation or our Streets and Roads crews. But could you put up the very first one? All right, this I got off of Google Earth. And that's Alumni Drive. It's been milled to be repaved. And at this point, you cannot see Eastbrook Court because it's behind those trees. And that's what the people on Eastbrook Court wanted. They wanted privacy. They didn't want to be near the busy street. So then at some point in time, some crew from somewhere came in and go to the next one. And, no, no, you've gone too far. There, that's it. That's it. All right. So I went out and took this one this morning because somehow or another, and I'm unsure of why we would come in and take away those people's privacy in that capacity, but all the lower limbs there had been removed, so now they don't have a sound break. They don't have a privacy break from the traffic on Alumni Drive. The sun happened earlier either this year or late in the fall. So then on Saturday morning, before I was up and motivating around like I would be on a weekday, I started getting phone calls about chainsaws running in Acton Park. So now we switch gears. Because we have Honeysuckle up there, which was very successfully removed along Richmond Road, about 90 tons of it, much to everybody's. I think everyone was pleased with that. Except at Acton Park, you have a baseball field, a dugout, a hill, a stream, and then the neighbors. And the honeysuckle there was part of what I would call visual as well as sound break. But on Saturday morning, it was the field day, then there was some help from the Harksnore Creation folks. Now I go to the third one. So I go up there because I've got people saying, well, they're here. And I think there's a difference between removing an invasive species, which I think would be the honeysuckle stump on the right, and starting to take out the limbs at the bottom of the pine trees. So go to the next one if you would. Or wherever you get to, they're all bad. Yeah. So something that used to be kind of sheltered and was both a sound and a sight break now becomes kind of a bald head, if you will. And if you can go to the last one. As you look down there to the far right side, you see that little stream bed. Along the right-hand side of that stream bed later this year is where we're going to do the dig and replace portion of the sewer project that goes through the Acton Park area. So I love doing this job because you have the ability to make things happen, and you can have good communication. But in the first instance on Eastbrook, I think those folks suffered a loss of privacy and a loss of quiet comfort. And here, removing the honeysuckle and cutting the lower branches of the trees, and then knowing that later this summer, along the right-hand side of the stream bed, they're going to be laying a 36-inch pipe underground through these people's backyard. One of the things all of us like to do is make sure that things kind of go in a certain form and fashion. And I've had a couple of instances here where things have kind of jumped out and been done in a way that all of our constituents say, well, why did that happen that way? And we'll spend some time with the CAO about it because I just want to make sure that when we're getting ready to go in, and I agree, honeysuckle is an invasive species, but sometimes it's a great screen break. between intense uses and not so intense uses. And certainly cutting off the lower branches of pine trees, I don't know. I'm struggling here because I feel like there's been a little bit of a loss of quiet comfort in a couple of different neighborhoods in the district. So I don't have an answer here, but I feel better for having talked about it. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. And then, you know, I'm not part of the Social Services Committee, and I did watch part of it, and I, too, received input, e-mails, and phone calls on behalf of the Salvation Army. And I know, Mayor, that being the leader that you are, the opportunity for fiber over process will take place. Because I just can't imagine a city of our size not wanting to help the Salvation Army, while others also have need, but they house families who have truly nowhere else to go, and there's an opportunity to help them through the budget process. I would appreciate it if you would do so. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Farmer, on both of those issues that you have illuminated for us. The benefit of this process, as you said, the opportunity to illustrate quickly. And I would say that this is another illustration, a picture worth a thousand words, and I guess I could say that I don't know much about it, but I doubt this was contracted out to Hillenmeyer. I doubt it. So, or Engleton. Oh, no. All right, thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to share that the next Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association meeting will be held Monday, April 1st at 6 p.m. at the O'Rear Center in Douglas Park off Georgetown Street. Also tomorrow morning, I will be participating in, I believe, along with the mayor, in a civic health roundtable discussion at U.K. in the Katz's Den at the Student Center from 1030 to noon, and that is in collaboration with Secretary of State Allison Grimes. And then as Councilmember Morsati mentioned, heavy traffic is expected this week, beginning Wednesday through Thursday for the NCAA basketball tournaments. And my food truck group will be meeting again tomorrow at 3 p.m. in the fifth floor conference room. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Akers. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I wanted to also add to folks about the NCAA tournament and watching out for people from out of town who will be here and may not know which direction to go. and lots of pedestrians and then our local drivers being more cautious about slowing down when you see a yellow light rather than stomping on the gas so that you can try to beat it on Vine Street and downtown. So let's be good neighbors, look out for each other around the U.K. and in the downtown area, and I hope everybody has a really great time. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lawless. All right. Next on our agenda is Mayor's Report. Is there a motion to approve? Move approval. Motion back. Vice Mayor Gordon, second by Council Member Beard. Is there any discussion on the motion? I thought I heard it from over at this side. Councilman. Sorry, forgive me. It's on both sides. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Next on our agenda is public comment. Mr. Mundy says no one has signed on for public comment, so that allows us to need to ask for a motion to adjourn. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Sadi. All right. Unless there's an objection, Council Member, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.