Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Transcription by CastingWords I'm going to go to the next video. Thank you. Today is June the 6th already, and it's 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and we are going to go ahead and convene the Budget Committee of the Whole, and the items we'll be taking up today. I know no one's listening, but it's okay. We have our revenue update, and the people at home can hear. We have our revenue update, the mayor's late item list, LINK recommendations and council member recommendations. And in particular, one of the goals from today's meeting is to accept a revenue number, which I think there's a lot of buzz up here right now about that, and then to look at motions regarding the mayor's late item list. So we hope to accomplish at least those two things and perhaps move on. So with that, each of you should have before you a fiscal year 2013 major revenue sources update. I want to thank Commissioner O'Mara and his staff for that. And that's where we'll start is with Commissioner O'Mara. Welcome. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. And I would like to extend a thank you to our staff for working very diligently to get this information processed and available to us last night at the end of the third working day of the month. That is an accelerated close for us, and I really appreciate their efforts in order to have this information available to us. It is for the four major revenue streams that we review in the Budget and Finance Committee on most monthly meetings. I would have a disclaimer in that because this is a soft close rather than a final close, that these numbers are soft. They might change a little bit. We've tried to capture everything, including refunds, but there could be some refunds that might drive these numbers down just a little bit if we haven't gotten them all into capture that we processed as we went through last night. The final close will be next week, so we're trying to accelerate to have this discussion. So with all that preamble, here is the month of May. First of all, does everyone have a hard copy? I tried to bring hard copies from everybody. I know that we didn't get this finished until this morning, so I distributed it as soon as it was available, but brought hard copies for people's reference. We appreciate that it's the very latest numbers. Thank you. So for the month of May, we were ahead in occupational withholdings, which is always a good sign. And the predicted strength of net profits has shown up with a strong May number. The insurance has this month shown a little bit of weakness, and the franchise fee continues to show weakness. One month is usually not a good period in order to make decisions. The year to date is the one that we think is a best number to look at. And that kind of tells a different story than what the one month of May is. The first number, we are currently at $148.5 million for employee withholdings against a year-to-date budget of $149 million. If you remember, the first half of the year, we were plussing more than 1% greater than budget. And so we thought that that was a good predictor. We did start to see a little softening of that in March, but we still thought that we would maintain a favorable budget variance. So this 11-month number is a little concerning, that we're actually half a million dollars below the year-to-date budget. The net profits, we were 10% below budget. And we did predict, based on a final mayor's proposed budget, that we were hopeful and thought that we saw signs that the net profits would start to turn around in the fourth quarter. And that has happened. Instead of being 10 percent below, we're less than 1 percent below budget. So that prediction seemed to be holding fast. The insurance is very, very strong, and one wonders how long that can maintain itself, but year-to-date, almost $2 million above year-to-date budget. And then the franchise shows softness for two reasons. One is a rate variance. We talked about that incorporated a nine-month increase in the rate, which was about $2.5 million. you see the year-to-date variance is greater than that. It's 3.4, and that would be volume. So it would be usage being less than what we had built the budget on. So that results in a total year-to-date actual of $220.5 million against a budget for the 11-month ending of $222.8 million. $2.2 million below the year-to-date budget for those four major categories. So if I were you, I would ask the question of what do you think is going to happen in June? So the next slide is for that discussion. And so I have condensed the previous slide to just the actual year to date against the adopted budget, which is the second column, compared to the estimate that was published and the basis for the mayor's proposed budget that we would use to leapfrog and build the 2014 revenue, which is actually, I think, the purpose of this discussion. And then if you will look at the total line of those three columns, I would like for you to look at the fact that we currently, through May, have $220.5 million. So that's money in the bank, subject to any refunds that might be outstanding. And the annual budget is $239.4 million, so it's about $19 million difference. the mayor's revised budget was at 235.5 so about 15 million dollars difference if you look at what is budgeted to occur in june that's about 16.5 so we look to be somewhere i don't think we will fall short of the mayor's estimate. I don't think I don't know that we will make the adopted budget so at this point my observation was from an economist point of view and a weatherman's point of view we were 50% right. We predicted correctly for two out of the four and it appears that we may not have been as accurate on two out of the four. We did predict a stronger close for net profit. That appears to be happening and we predicted that insurance would be strong and that appears to be happening. We thought that we would continue our plussing in the employee withholdings that is now suspect and that it looks like the usage part of the franchise fee may have eroded that one. So two out of four. Two went up, two looked like or down. So I would propose consideration of adoption of the mayor's budget. We could try to true up each one of those. You would plus some, you would minus some, but I think your total will come very close to what is in the mayor's budget. I do know that we've still got the month of June to go and I and I do know that we have already identified about $600,000 in refunds that have to be paid for with the June receipts and withholdings and net profit. So I'm open for questions at this point. So, Mr. O'Mara, just to be clear, yes, these are fiscal year 13 numbers. The number we're here to adopt today will be for the fiscal year 14 budget. That is correct. And your recommendation is that you still feel that the number in the proposed budget is correct, and I think it was 297 and some hundreds of thousands, almost 297, but we'll need an exact number. The mayor's proposed budget has a total revenue of 297, 191, 180. 297, 191, 180. 180. Right. And that's for the general fund. General fund. Yes, ma'am. I would... So I'll... Yes, go ahead. Well, I would remind, because it's heavy on my mind, the discussions we had when we proposed the budget and with the University of Kentucky about the challenges that we have in this current economy with forecasting. On the national level, we have things that are happening that are outside of our control. At the Federal Reserve, there's the economic easing, the EQ, whether they're going to stay in the market and when they would exit, national debt limit, the adoption of a national budget. All of those seem to create that noise level that he showed on the graph that has an unsettling effect on the total business and economy. The economic indicators, some are up, some are down. We still have mixed messages. Our unemployment in Fayette County is the same year over year, May over May. Now there are positive signs in the housing market, but we really didn't have a boom and bust housing market, so I'm not sure how much lift we will receive out of that. And then finally I called the state and asked how the state budget was doing. And their state sales tax receipts are flat or low, and it has a concern because that is retail and the spending of the public. So we have all this noise. We have all this, I want to get positive. I better hold up. So given all of those things, I'm recommending to stay the course and approve the 297. Okay, now, Council Members are not able to log in, so we will have time for some questions, and I know there are a few. We'll start with Ellinger, Council Member Ellinger, then Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Reading these numbers, looking at the annual budget and then the estimated, there looks like it's about a $5 million shortfall there between those two numbers. Is that correct? The $239 and the $235? four million for that i mean four million and then you're you're estimating the 16.5 on coming in for june um actually i'm i'm quoting the budget okay so by doing that that would come in at 239 less than you have 239.4 and then you're coming in at 237. so you really are coming in a little short still what about 2.5 short instead of budget on budget and then so if you do that short and then the mayor's proposed budget i think is built on on increase in revenues of of what percentage i wrote that down in case that came up we assumed a three percent growth in employee withholdings two and a half percent growth in net profits a five percent growth and insurance and then for franchise fee we assumed flat usage with four million dollars in rate increase so what was the total then um from the revenues from this year to next year what what percentage increase is that uh it's 3.9 percent that's what i thought proposed budget compared to the mayor's revised estimate. And then coming in 2.5 million less than what we anticipated, so that's going to be a lower basis starting then, correct? Well, I need to clarify. The 3.9 is compared to the third column on the current slide, the mayor's proposed estimate, FY13 estimate. So that is actually compared to the lower number? Yes, sir. Okay, so that does help a little then. Your basis is on a smaller number, so it's on that one. Correct. If you remember, we were getting nervous about making budget. We came back and told of the exposure, and then when we came up with the final mayor's proposed budget, we were less pessimistic but still saying we'd probably fall short of budget. Do we have the expenditures? Because I know we've done a good job on keeping our expenditures down. Do you have those numbers by chance up to? I don't. We're not closing the books until next week. I can tell you that we do have favorable variances, as we reported to you still, in payroll and some in operating. We do know that the operating is suspect because of the commitment to spend and complete projects by June 30. And we also have unknowns, such as the medical fund, the insurance risk fund, those type of things that are not resolved until we close the books during the summer. And that's why I committed to a fund balance number to you by October 1. Does it concern you that our numbers are coming in less? Because you told us back in February they'd probably be coming in a little less, and they have come in a little less, and then that we're now increasing our percentage to 3.9 percent. Does that not seem like a pretty big growth number? that kind of concerns me what was the growth for this last um for fiscal year 13 i don't have that i think it was 3.5 but i think we'll look it up and have a instead of a guesstimate okay thank you vice mayor you're welcome council member stennett thank you vice mayor i was going to follow on those same lines and and just clarify so year in f5 13 your projection is we'll end up 2.5 in the hoe or even based on expense savings? I think we will be positive because of the expense savings. So we'll be positive, so we don't need to dip into fund balance or anything. I do not anticipate that. And as we discussed, we saved money in the payroll mostly because of timing of new hires, and that's benefiting us right now. Very good. That's all needed. It's easy. Thank you. Council members, does anyone else wish to speak? We still don't have the ability to log in. So we'll just go down the row here. Council Member Clark, then Council Member Lane. Commissioner, why are we estimating that the franchise fees will be flat this year? I mean, they were flat or below this year because of various and sundry things like weather and so forth. On what basis are we assuming it's going to be flat again? Well, it's not a sophisticated analysis. I don't have a weather forecasting model into our revenue, which is really what this is, the usage is driven by. Wet summers, dry summers, hot summers, cold winters, those are the ebbs and flows. We had a very moderate weather two years ago, and so we thought that we would not have two of them in a row, and it turned out not to be correct. and now we're assuming we'll have three in a row well actually um we're not going to make the revised estimate on franchise we will be below that right so in order to reach the franchise number we're going to have to have weather extremes in order to get that usage back up okay but as i was saying we have exposure in two we we have we have benefit in two and that's why I'm saying trying to true them up I think is kind of a chasing our tail type of thing I think they in total for the entire general fund I would say that the 297 is a safe number to go with I appreciate it thank you councilmember Lane how soon do you think you would have the revised numbers for are the final numbers for May based on expenditures and revenues to see what our net bottom line number looks like going into June well I'll have a fund balance estimate by October 1 because we have actuarial studies to see whether those expenses have to be booked post June 30 so it was that your question well no for the for the year today ending May oh in May income versus expenses what our bottom line would be it will be next week okay well I would have to get with our accounting department to to get that further defined I think that number would be very valuable to council as we sort of move forward and trying to finalize the budget so we could just see what that looks like because if we're in the red then we're gonna have to allocate some money to get into balance from maybe the previous year's surplus. And then on the other hand, if we have some surplus, that eliminates that problem, and then we can see how that impacts our budget for the coming year. I guess I would repeat my comment to Council Member Stenet. While I don't know what that fund balance or difference is going to be because of all of the machinations in order to close the books, I don't think our exposure to a loss or a negative is there. I don't know what exposure or the range that we might have for fund balance. Okay. All right. Well, it makes it a little tough when you're trying to budget when we don't have a good baseline number to come off of. And I was looking at fiscal year 12. we did if I read this number correctly 159.6 in employee withholding these are millions 28.8 in net profit insurance was 23.4 and franchise fees were 16.8 so if you think that I think a lot of those insurance fees may be related to new car sales when somebody buys a new policy does that run the number up on that sum or I don't have that granular information. I do know that rates across the state went up, and we benefited from that from very catastrophic events the year before in the state. Okay. Thank you, sir. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As always, I think dealing with the budget is difficult because it's hard to remember what exactly we're talking about at one time, but I just want to clarify what I believe I've heard you say now a couple times. Although the revenue estimates are down, the total budget for fiscal year 13 is essentially going to come out where it needs to because expenses are also down. Is that correct? That is correct. So what we're dealing with here really for today is an estimate based on revenues that are down, and it does not affect, at the moment, the fund balance or whether we'll end up the year in the red or not. Is that correct? This first part of your meeting, that is correct. Okay, that's all I needed. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I caught that, this first part of your meeting. Yes. Yes. Is there any other Council Member who wishes to speak? Okay, Council Member Stenet, and I think now you can log in if you do have a question. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Remind us what our fund balance, beginning budgeted fund balance for FY13 was. When we passed the budget, what did we include in there? $1.5 million. Right, and how much of that is left? Do we know? I know we've done a couple budget amendments here and there, but my point is we have a cushion built into the budget anyway. We do. That hopefully will help you break even. I agree with that. So I just want to make sure my colleagues remember that. We balanced a budget with a cushion of $1.5 million. I know we spent a small change of that, but that should help us smooth out and come out positive. Thank you. Excellent point. And did you say someone's getting the number of the current fund balance? I don't know that we have that. I do have the answer to Council Member Ellinger's question of last year's budgeted increase. Do you want me to wait until he comes back? He's right here. Hello. He's in the chamber. So repeat again what the question was. I believe the question was, what was our year-over-year last year's mayor's proposed budget, the proposed budget over the estimate of the prior year? And it was fiscal year 12. 12 over 11. And that was 5.3%. Did that answer your question, Council Member Ellinger? Okay. Does any other Council Member have a question? All right. Connie, did you have any comment or since you've been working with Stacy and the council about the revenue? I have just one particular comment, and that would be that regardless of whether the net result would be a zero change to 2014's fund balance, if we, at this point in time, think we should change the budgeted figures, I think we should change them because otherwise when you look at this next year, you're going to be looking at a budget figure that's not the latest number to be comparing to. That would be my only consideration. Okay. Anybody have a question about that? Log in, please. Council Member Masati. Connie, if you wouldn't mind giving us that number, that would be helpful. I don't know, because Commissioner Romero just mentioned that the net result would be zero, although they might change individually based on what we see now. I don't know what his numbers would be, but I would suggest that we change them, because if one of them should really be $500,000 more and one of them $500,000 less, then when you're looking at it next year, you'll be looking at it compared to a corrected number. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice President. Connie, specifically, are you talking about the revenue estimate of those four fund categories? Yes. So, I mean, right now, what's printed and what's up there is $500,000 difference. Is that what you're referring to, just that one category? These four items in the 2014 budget, if among them they should be different but still net to a zero change, then I would recommend we go ahead and change them so that when you're looking at comparatives next year, you're looking at an accurate budget figure to compare to. Mr. O'Meara, do you have a comment? Well, my recommendation wasn't to get line by line. right but but i i mean it's a valid point it's half a million dollars at the bottom lines and obviously at those the councilman ellinger's point those that percentage growth way off may it makes it a lot higher we need to order to come in at an accurate forecast but i think we've had that problem since i've been on for 10 budgets so we've never done that gone back and corrected anything you know and let me just phrase it it's it's another point of view but On $297 million, you're talking about less than half of a percent. Right. And that's why we've never gone back and historically changed what was printed, because the mayor's working on data back in December and January numbers, and we get the luxury of having this, which is much different. Thank you. But I guess I would, since no one's on the list right now, I would tag on and ask, so next, when the discussion comes up, I mean, if we do this enough years that we don't true up the numbers, eventually they do make a difference. I guess we just don't know it. Well, and I would add to it, again, I'm advocating my position, so you have to understand where I'm coming from. But that 16.5 is the budget. What if we come in with a million dollars less than the budget for net profit? So you have a variance on actual to, I mean, that's what I meant by the chasing the tail, until it's all over with. And I know of in excess of $600,000 worth of refunds. Now, I don't have that parsed out between withholdings and net profit, but I know that whatever revenue we take in in June has to pay for those. So when you're getting into that $500,000, I don't mean to deminimize that it's $500,000, but it's very granular. If someone did want to follow it, I presume you would be able to call up all the numbers, even if the budget itself didn't have those numbers in it for each category. We will have actuals when we close the books. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Councilmember Massadi. I would just reiterate, if we do have the actual numbers and they can be – I'm sorry, I'm saying if we do have specific numbers and we can utilize them, why not use them? I know a half a million dollars in a $300 million budget is minimal, but I think it helps us as far as when we try to make some of these decisions if we can have as much accurate information as possible. And I know things swing, just as you said, when the revenues come in and things will change. But it would be helpful to me. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. I want to go back to Mr. O'Mara's point. I think it kind of jumped over a couple folks. These numbers are not audited, and we won't get that audit until November. So whatever number you put in this book is going to be wrong right now. Well, it'll be wrong tomorrow. Right, exactly. That's what I'm saying. So this is a new point. But the point is we've done this consistently the same every year. So our percentages are accurate in the point that we have been consistent in how we estimate our revenue. So until these numbers are audited, I don't feel comfortable changing anything in here until we have actual numbers because these are his best guess. These are not actual audited numbers. Oh, Ms. Underwood. I'm talking about 2014, not 2013, which isn't going to be audited for another year. Right, and Mr. O'Meara correctly said this half the meeting, we haven't got the 2014 numbers yet. No, but we have a 2014 budget. Exactly, and we can make any change we want. I'm talking about when I asked my question on FY13 estimates, because that matters based on what we're going to calculate to increase for 2014. Back to Councilman Ellinger's first question about the percentage increase in revenues. Yes, it does. And that's what we're talking about now. If we fall short in 2013, the percentage goes up for the categories. My comment was on the 2014 numbers so that we start the year with our best guess of what those numbers should be. On our expenditures. On our revenues of these four categories. So if we know them to be that we should guess something different now, even if the change is zero, I would change it to our best guess now. Well, I'm sure we're getting ready to talk about that on the late item, too. So good discussion here in the second half of the meeting. Thank you. Is there any other comment or question? And we appreciate all perspectives. No? Any motions? I do, I will say, having worked with you for a long time, Mr. O'Mara, I know that you are conservative in your numbers. I don't deny that. Pardon me? I don't deny that. Yes. And so I know you're not prone to go way out on a limb with something that's wild. So I appreciate that. Council members, I do think it would be important for us. We can't really talk about other numbers in the budget unless we have an adopted revenue number. Does anyone feel that they want to move and adopt a revenue number? Council Member Ford? Vice Mayor, thank you. Just before we get there, I'm looking at page two of the budget book, and the total revenue is roughly $297 million on revenue, 1.5 on fund balance July 1 for a total of 298.7. Is that where we are in regards to revenue? The first number that you read is where we are, the 297, 191, 180. So we're only discussing that number. We're not discussing total. We're not discussing fund balance. We're talking just income. I hope that's clarifying. Yes, I think I think that's where most of us are. Very good. In that case, Vice Mayor, I would agree with you that a motion to that number seems okay with me. I would be glad to offer that motion to approve that number. So moved. Okay, so Council Member Ford has moved, and if I've interpreted your motion correctly, to accept the number of $297,191,180. That's correct. As the revenue number for the fiscal year 14 budget. Yes, ma'am. And Council Member Clark seconded. Now, any discussion on the motion? I see none. So we'll take a vote. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. I just want to follow up with what I asked earlier just to verify. So when you're talking about our percentage increase, it's only going to be 3.9% increase from fiscal year 13 to 14 because you've lowered your estimates on the revenue from that 239 to 235. That is correct. That's where you built it on that, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, because that did make a little difference to me. So it's a smaller number than I thought it would be. And you're saying the year before that we were built on a 5.3% increase? Correct. That's the information I received. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. any other council members? I see none. All those in favor of the yes okay this is the time. Okay thank you. I guess my only other concern on the growth is we up until the beginning of the year we were we were actually at a positive and then we went negative and then why do you expect us to go back up though because if we were up and then down and now we're going back up so can you Give me how that gives you that encouragement when you came in February and were a little discouraged, and now you're encouraged. That's a great question. I'm schizophrenic when I try to talk about revenue forecasting, and my disclaimer is saying that it's a foggy crystal ball. But what we're finding is quarterly ebbs and flows. That's the way the economy is recovering. And if I can do some graphs with my hands, a typical recovery has a downturn and then a very accelerated recovery until you get back to kind of the slope of the line that you were before the recovery occurred. This year, I mean this event, is perplexing and concerning because we had a growth, we had a drop, but we're not having that high incline to get back to the line we were at before. We're having a slow incline, and we're still not up to that year-over-year growth that we experienced for 10 straight years prior to this recovery. But it is still going up. Not accelerated, but it's still going up. So expecting some increase is a pretty consensus opinion of economists. It's how much. Is it three? Is it four? Is it two and a half? is it three and a half that's where all the discussion goes i hope that helps thank you all right thank you very much are there yes we have some more questions councilmember lawless I plan to support this motion, and I think if Mr. O'Mara could have the ability to foresee the economic future of the government, Lexington, or the world, he wouldn't be standing here. He would own an Allen in the Caribbean somewhere. So we deal with unknowns economically in our personal lives all the way up to globally. So thank you, and thank you for all your hard work and your explanations. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Mayor, so based on the motion that's on the floor, If we accept this number, we're also accepting the franchise fee increase of $4 million that we'll be voting on later on today. So if a council member, I'm trying to understand how we're going to vote on that later, because if that doesn't pass, then we've got to come back and redo our revenue number. Yes. By $4 million of cuts, it's two steps. this is the one step in the final process of the budget and and I'm practicing without a license again but you you all are making motions and accepting them but you don't ratify the budget until next week or the week after so this is the first step of adopting the revenue portion of the budget that you would present for ratification? I hope I haven't. Yeah, my point is this is not set in stone tonight. If we vote to approve this revenue number, it can be changed later because we don't actually approve it officially until we vote on the budget itself. So just want my colleagues to understand that. If something happens different tonight, then we have a $4 million big hole to come in and find cuts for. And you're welcome to that point. Last year, the budget was approved with an increase in the franchise fees, but the actual vote was never brought to the council to increase the fees. Is that correct? That's a correct statement. So it's kind of a similar situation, except that tonight is second reading to increase the franchise fees. I think those are all correct statements. Yes, ma'am. So, Council Member Farmer, did you still have a question? Well, Council Member Sennett really highlighted the point I was going to, and certainly the discussion is fluid, and we can accept this number and amend it later based on the outcome of the meeting or the vote this evening or any other contemplative moves that we have, but the point is there. This number includes what would be the income from that change. Okay, thank you. Any other Council Members? So, Mr. O'Meara, hypothetically speaking, tonight's action potentially could mean that on Tuesday we might adopt a different revenue number. We may go back, depending on what happens, and adjust our revenue number. Is that a correct way to look at this? I think all things are fluid at this point and in the hands of the council. And that means translated into lay terms, what? Any changes can happen that the council chooses to make. It may be a very, very long weekend, but... Okay, I think that answers it. I see no other questions. So we still have the motion on the floor to accept the revenue number for the fiscal year 14 budget. And again, one more time, that number is $297,191,180. And all those in favor, please say aye and log in electronically. We're working. Okay. That motion passes 10 to 5. So, thank you, Mr. O'Mara, very much. You're welcome. Now, we're going to move on to our next item of business, which is the late items, the mayor's list of late items. and these are just for a little bit of review these are items that were either in error just little errors in the budget or they are items that the council has approved by ordinance or resolution or amendment since the budget was put together and presented and typographical changes, et cetera. This does not reflect, and I hope this is correct, any new items. That is correct. Yeah. And we welcome Melissa Luker. Are you still acting? Yes. Keep it up. It's a big acting job. Acting by fire. Our acting budget director. Welcome. and I think it's important if you can walk us through this list. Okay. Do we want to do it how it was done last year, where we go through a page and then discuss it or just take questions? I think that's fine. That worked pretty well, as I recall. I think so. All right. Put it on the other page, on the next page. You all have a hard copy of this. because that's pretty small to read on the screen. My eyes are struggling to see it. So the first two items there are outside agencies, and they obtain their own insurance policy. We push out the insurance allocation to all the divisions, so this is just correcting that for their insurance policies. The third item, this was an error in the budget. A number got overridden by the correct number in fleet services. You can see it's an increase of two hundred and thirty five thousand dollars. Yeah, that was a big error. And then item number four, that is the transfer to fleet services that makes their budget net out to zero because they're charged a fully loaded labor cost out to the other divisions. So with changes that were made, we have to make sure that nets to zero. Number five, this is the rent for the Dean facility. They have moved to the Cisco Road campus, and the rent is no longer needed. This was overlooked in the budget process, and it's a net gain of $128,230. The next item is the Homeless Intervention and Prevention Professional Services, item number six. It's an increase of $30,000. The total amount for that office should have been $150. When I wrote it down, I wrote down $120. so that's correcting that error item number seven is an increase in professional services engineering for the commissioner planning for corridors to complete the Vercels Road study this was initially budgeted in FY 13 and UK was working on this study for this and we just received state approval on May 1st so we weren't able to expend any of the dollars in FY 13 and this is something that we committed to the links that we would include on the late item list so that's why this item is on here item number eight is part chemical inventory for golf courses this is we're reducing the expense for repairs and maintenance in parts due to the method of accounting for inventory of the chemicals for the golf courses. This is a reduction of around $80,000 in various golf courses. Item number nine is the Citizens Advocate. It was incorrectly budgeted in cell phones, and it should have been budgeted in training, so it's just a wash there. No net impact. Item number 10 is the Carnegie Center. It's decreasing the Carnegie Center funding based on the social services approved allocation this was a an error that was put in the budget the Carnegie Center is a finance partner agency and a social services partner agency and the amount that we gave them was the full amount of their requests unknowingly to us the partner agent the social service aspect we didn't get that caught in there so that's that's that's why that one is in there number 11 is the Lexington Center Corporation. They just recently approved their budget and this is a net change based on the information we received. We're just a pass-through. That's the hotel motel tax that gets passed on. Yes and they just approved their budget so we were updating ours with their information. Item number 12, this is the excess insurance premium increased. We just received the quotes from the carriers last week so the amount that we have in the budget is not enough to cover what is going to be our premiums for next year and I believe you all are voting on that tonight first reading first reading of the and then item number 13 this is a correction to the accounting for professional services and IT to correctly account for information technology so we can tell what we're spending on IT okay all right council members that's the first page so this would be the time for questions councilmember farmer thank you for going through that line by line i'm interested in the one relation related to corridors the number seven okay you're saying that that 150 000 is for a study and it's not to actually plant or do it's for the vercells road study that was put in the budget commissioner paulson is here he can probably explain the study better than i so i'll just please let him and miss henson may have some comments on this as well but The study was budgeted last year, and it was to piggyback off one that was being done by UK that was funded by the state. That is to look more at some of the pedestrian aspects of Versailles Road and how to improve that. That will set the stage for future funding and improvements on Versailles Road. I can hear out of both ears. Thank you. That was excellent. Okay, Council Member Akers. Thank you. Can you speak to the Carnegie Center? So were they notified? Have you all let them know that they're getting a reduction? This was brought up during the links. Okay. It was a mistake. In which link? I was in that link. It was in your link when we said they should have got the $14,960 instead of the $21,000. Okay. Because I don't remember. Do you remember that? Yeah. I mean, I remember that they were funded twice by both, you know, as a partner agency and through you all. But I don't, I mean, I think that they walked away thinking they were getting the higher of the two amounts. And so I just want to make sure that they know that they are actually going to receive less from us. And maybe, there we go. Craig can. Welcome. Yeah, because they were hiring additional tutors and all that stuff based on, you know, our funding. So I want to make sure that they. After we went through the review process, we sent out emails to each agency with that recommendation, and we're currently working on the purchase of service agreement as well that they'll receive at the end of this week, tomorrow, that has that correct number in there. Okay. Okay, thank you. And Melissa, on number six, so the original $120,000 budgeted for this homeless office is for one position and operation costs, and then this additional $30,000 is for a consultant? In the budget, there is money for one position and then money for a consultant. I believe the position cost is around $65,000 plus benefits, and then the remainder of that is to go toward consultants, and that's around $60,000 to pay for two consultants with this $150,000. And maybe this is not your question, but what are the consultants supposed to do? I will defer on that one. And if I recall, the mayor in his budget address proposed $150,000, but what I think you just said was your finger put in $120,000. It was a typo. The two and five are on the side keyboard there. Sally, CAO. Sally. Sorry, just gone. And Council Member Kay may have to, if I misstate this, One of the consultant studies was the Housing First study, and the other was a needs assessment. And at Lynx, we talked about quite a bit the idea of should we do these studies prior to hiring the person to consult because we didn't know exactly. And I think Lynx recommended that we do these, Council Member Ellinger, that we do these studies before we hire the person. and I think that's the advice we're going to follow. I think they gave us good advice, and that will indicate the type of person we think. But this should give the direction of how to set up this office and how we really need to target resources. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massadi. Sally, please don't go away. Sorry. I guess my thought is on the number six, following up on what Council Member Aker said. Would you not hire the person for the position that would have the expertise to maybe be able to do some of these things instead of having to hire an additional consultant? Our plans, how we were going to approach this was, in the conversations about how to hire the person, we thought that what we would do is that since Shea Rabel had basically been doing all the, had been staffing the homeless task force, that she would be the person that would temporarily work with these two consultants, because I think there are more documents and roadmaps for how to do this, to how to set up the office. Would you, am I misspeaking, or is that, have I answered your question? Well, I guess if she's already in that position, or has that, then we would necessarily, would we need to have another person in that position? Until we finish these studies and see how that office is and what kind of person we need in that office, I think the LINC's recommendation was we should hold off on the person, and that's what we intend to do. So do the consultants first, then hire the physician later. And our timeline, and I do think they were right about it, the link, our timeline would be that we want to go on and get these consultants, get these reports done quickly so that we're not a year from now talking about what should we do from this office, that we can bring back and get this started very quickly. So our hope is to have the right person on here mid-year next year. I guess my feeling is that we were going to hire an expert or whatever, someone who has the expertise in this field that could be able to give us that information without, again, having to hire an outside consultant to give us this information. I understand your question. Council Member Akers. And I guess to follow up, Sally, or Council Member Kay, so I guess my question is did the report or the product of the task force, the homeless task force, did it not include sort of this expertise in the needs assessment and what's happening? I mean, there was an affordable housing task force that worked for a couple years. I mean, it seems to me that the information is there as far as what we need, and a needs assessment and sort of a road map forward. I mean, I thought that was what the work group presented. So if somebody could explain. I really need somebody that's more versed in this. Oh, Council Member Kay wants to take a stab at it. Thank you. And then Shea can add on. So where we are with this is that there was a fairly, from my perspective, there was a fairly comprehensive set of recommendations from the Homeless Commission. Questions were raised by members of council and by the mayor about the extent of detail needed before we could actually figure out exactly how much money we needed and what it would be committed to. So the recommendations are very extensive and they're very broad, and they range from building more affordable housing to providing housing and services for the chronically homeless, and there's a bunch of categories in between. So the question is, how should this office be staffed? What kind of expertise are we looking for? And I think there's some discussion about that. But the thought was, if we can get one or more people who have expertise in things like Housing First and things like affordable housing to help with the actual design of that office and to help us think through where the funding is going to come from, then we'll be in a better position. So we understood that the mayor would put $150,000 in the budget for that. When I saw the 120 figure, I said, huh? And they said, oh, must have been a mistake, which is where we are today. So long story short, my understanding is that what will happen in relatively short order, that is certainly by the fall, we will have retained some expertise to help us design the set of programs that will be implemented. We'll have some sense of direction about how much money that really will entail, where that money is going to come from, and then we'll be in a position to hire somebody to actually a person in this office. So, Shay, you want to add? Thank you. Thank you. I think you summarized it accurately, and I just want to point out one other thing, Council Member Massadi. We are not just looking for consultants. We're looking for outside expertise from other cities, other mayors, other offices of homelessness and housing. So we're going to do our best to try to minimize the cost in terms of putting this proposal together, this next step. But we do need the funds. It's a modest amount overall to make sure we have the funding necessary in the event that we do need to engage actual firms. Does that? Okay. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Kay. Council Member Kay. Sir. You mentioned affordable housing in your discussions. Are you still pooling affordable housing and the homeless in the same room, so to speak? We have two separate proposals that are now in the Economic Development Committee, and one of them comes from the Homeless Commission, which is a comprehensive set of recommendations that includes money for affordable housing. there is a separate recommendation that is just on the affordable housing issue that also remains in committee. And our conversation to this point has been that it would be helpful to let that stay in committee until we get a report back from the mayor about his proposal for how this office will be structured, what programs we imagine will be implemented, what the overall cost for that will be, and where the money is going to come from. And in the best of all possible worlds, that proposal will satisfy the people who have specifically an interest in affordable housing and the people who have a specific interest in homelessness and those of us who believe it needs to be addressed comprehensively. But for the moment, that's where they sit. Those of us that worked 30 months on the affordable housing question don't necessarily agree with that, that there would be an external entity that would have the skill set to handle housing per se and that the homeless was a totally different story, actually. um you know i i mentioned this when this first came up and i guess i fell on deaf ears but i know that the affordable housing folks want to have their own their own deal if i may respond well sure i believe at this point if you will speak to the people who have been most interested in the affordable housing issue from the community they will tell you that they would be happy to have a comprehensive proposal go forward so long as it includes the affordable housing trust fund that they have been advocating for so long. Is there going to be a pooling of monies at some point or is that going to be two different pieces of money I guess or do we know? I think at this point we do not know until we get a proposal from the mayor. Okay. Thank you. Any other council members have questions about the first page of the late item list? Council Member Clark. Vice Mayor, I need some clarification here. Oh, that's what this is all about. Thank you. Are we here to discuss the recommendations of LINC and the mayor's proposed budget, or are we simply talking about corrections in the budget? Well, that's an excellent question. All of the above. We're methodically working through getting a budget. I understand that. And semi. Some people say semi. And the first piece we needed was a revenue number so that we know how much can be in the budget. and the second piece from my perspective and many council members is we need to have the late items and decide whether to adopt them because these are basically i hate to say they're errors but everybody you know they're little in most cases they're errors not everybody makes errors but we need to correct these and that will change the number i understand that so then we will go to the LINKS recommendations. I think my question then is we're going back into the reasons for the budget rather than talking about the need to make corrections. Well, this page is corrections. I understand. And yet we're going back to the question are these valid expenditures? And so I'm confused. I understand. I understand now what you're saying. There's been some comment about the validity of the program or the item in the budget, as opposed to the late item correction. Yes. Good point, and we will try to stay on task. Council Member Farmer. Well, we're going through the late items as brought to us by the mayor. the mayor and the administration and and to a certain degree they have the effect of homework they got done later or things that got changed or things that need to be brought forward in a different way from the previous budget to the new budget and I think we're taking them up first because they make probably a bigger difference in the total than anything and all the links combined so once we would have gone through these then we go back through the links reports then I'm assuming we get down to the image of council members stuff and sooner or later we have money for coffee. Did you say coffee or copier? Okay. All right. Council Member Ford. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I'll be quick. To go back to number six in regards to the homeless prevention, my understanding, and I just need a quick clarification. Does the $150,000 create an office of homeless prevention or does it study it? My understanding is that the mayor's proposed budget was to create an office. Going to Council Member Clark's point, though, this does make it a valid question because the late item talks about consultancy. And I'm not going to debate whether or not we need consultants or not or whether we have too many or not. But just at the end of the day, distinguish for me, are we creating an office? Yes. Or are we studying the creation of an office? I would say we are creating an office that is currently going to be housed in the CAO's office. The consultants will help us put all of the pieces together that we will need going forward long term. The comprehensive staff that might be needed, the additional funding, whether or not the Affordable Housing Trust Fund might be a component of funding it long term. So this is the first step in creating an office. We will have an office, and we will eventually hire somebody full-time. But it will serve, it will be housed in the CAO's office until such time as we decide where else it should be housed permanently, or if any other reorganization needs to happen around government. Thanks, Sherry. Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome, and I think Council Member Kay would like to correct the description. If I may, I think some of the confusion comes because the description on our page for this item says, Increase professional services for homeless intervention to fund an additional consultant. And I believe what it should say is, increase funds by $30,000 because of a clerical error. This $30,000 is not specifically to fund an additional consultant. Actually, it is. And this is technical, just technical details. is going into the professional services line item in this office. So it's increasing the money that was for professional services by $30,000 in the Office of Homelessness. So we're both right. Council Member Lawless. I agree with Council Member Kay. I was on that link with Council Member Myers and Council Member Ellinger, and it was a typo. It was not, and we discussed, should we just go on and put it in there, or should it be a late item? The item was always supposed to be $150,000. It got put in as a typo, $120,000 instead of $150,000. and it was a clerical error. We're getting in the weeds on stuff that we don't need to get in the weeds on. So we had a discussion. We recommended that it be a late item, although we also were very supportive of this. Thank you. You're welcome. All questions are welcome at this meeting. Is there any other question about page one? Council Member Massadi. I'm sorry, Shay, just so I'm clear, $150,000 encompasses a person that's going to man the office, plus you're going to have some additional professional fees for consultants. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Interestingly enough, had the correct number been put in, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Yes. But two and five are very close if you use the side part of the keyboard that I need that. Okay, we'll move on and let you start on page two. All right, number four. Commissioner is sneaking up behind you. Well, format and process is all in your control. I was thinking you were going to approve page by page, but if you choose not to do that. We could approve page by page. Council members, we were doing the questions page by page. Yes, the two and a half pages do add up to a bottom line. So I don't know. You may want to take it all at once. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Number 14, that's for the director of the sister cities. After the mayor's budget was proposed, the Commission informed us that they have voted on a 2% increase for their director so that is what that $900 is for item number 15 this is revenue temporary personnel this is just to correct the accounting on this item so it's a wash there item number 16 is personal positions this is there were seven positions that were civil service positions there were vacant positions and they were inadvertently left out in police's budget police didn't notice them and we didn't notice them either until the budget was you know proposed so and they're in the process of hiring but you know when you have the list they didn't see it so that's what that is and that's a total of two hundred and ninety three thousand fifty dollars item number 17 these are personnel position corrections the the first one is to change the grade and max salary for the CIO position during the links it was discussed the CIO position was put in at a much lower grade and salary than it should have been and in order to attract the most qualified candidates for this position it was discussed to raise the salary to the highest of the grade the second one there was an additional vacant position included in the mayor's proposed budget municipal engineer senior and so that's just removing that the next item is the same situation it's removing an additional vacant public service supervisor senior the adjust equipment and uniform allowance and Corrections Corrections requested more new positions than were funded in the mayor's proposed budget and the calculation didn't update to account for that correct salaries for two evidence technicians and one public information officer this is in police and this is there are people in these positions currently and this is just getting the correct salary information in there the next item correcting the chartfield mapping section number for police analyst position this is just correcting the accounting, it's a wash there. Correct vacant position salary entitled from fire lieutenant to fire captain. A fire lieutenant was included in the mayor's proposed budget and it should have been a fire captain. Fund two vacant code enforcement positions at 98% versus 75%. This is based on the resolution that council passed on immediately filling those positions. A 2% salary increase for positions included in the new request was not included in the mayor's proposed budget and it should have been. The next item is another one where we're correcting the accounting to change the chartfield mapping for the life skills program instructor and then we're correcting the coding on a custodial worker position from non-civil to civil it was miscoded in there so that's a wash. Number 18 and number 19 these are an attempt to true up the activity in personnel since we produced the mayor's proposed budget and I noted in your packet there was an addendum in the back for more information on the individual divisions that this impacts and number 18 is personnel changes resulting from ordinances and resolutions that the council has passed since the personal data was pulled for the mayor's proposed budget so these are things that were already approved by council and we're just incorporating them so we get the latest information into the budget and then item number 19 our personnel vacancies resulting from employee turnover and so between these two you get the personnel activity that has taken place since we pulled the data to get it trued up for you know as true as it can be for the budget number 20 this is an unemployment rate increase it's a increase in the general fund of 107 thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars we received this updated number on the day the budget book was sent to the printers so we couldn't get that incorporated in to meet the deadlines in time and then number 21 is the indirect cost allocation and when changes are made in personnel it changes indirect cost allocation so that is just what that changes with all of the items discussed it's a net change of a reduction of three hundred eighty six thousand thirty dollars in the general fund and leaving a fund balance after the late item changes of one million six hundred twenty four thousand five hundred ninety dollars all right we'll entertain questions and first up is councilmember beard I'm not exactly headhunting, but I'm just a little curious about how anybody can lose seven civil service employees. Personnel is a very cumbersome process to get in the budget. And when we have the personnel, we give it to the divisions to look over. And a large division, such as police, has 500 and something employees. And so going through that and then what was in the system and pulling it, it just was, you know, just a mistake. Were these people on board for multiple years prior to that? They were vacant positions. They were vacant positions? Yes, and we can't pull vacant positions out of the system. They have to be pulled another way. So like I said, it's a cumbersome. These are not actually living, breathing souls at this point? well they were in the process of hiring one of them i believe okay well that's forty one thousand dollars now let's go to the next one are they are they continuing to do this are they stopped doing this i don't know you know i'm not involved with the hiring process so i'm not i can't answer that um to where they are okay there it is this is the only person that i'm in there okay we only know that they've hired one person but commissioner mason me okay i think some of the positions they're in the process of advertising for but it was a a match-up thing between people soft and what the police had and it just created a gap of knowledge of the seven vacancies okay thank you all so to council Councilmember Beard's question, are they funded at the 75% level, some of them, and then others funded at the full? 293. One of them is funded at the full, and the other six are funded at the 75. At the vacant level. Okay. Councilmember Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Going back to the CIO position, what grade should that person or position be? It should have been a 212. And what's the salary you're budgeting for that? I know this is a $43,000 increase, but what's the total? Just a second here. You're fine. Take your time. The base is 159 plus benefits. 159 plus benefits and you have budgeted all 159? 98% of that, yes. So why are we budgeting 98% of it when the rest of our positions are budgeting 75%? This is one that the administration is wanting to get on board as soon as possible and knowing the cost of this position, if we budgeted it at 75% it would have somewhat of an impact. Have you even advertised it yet? They're getting ready to. And how long would that hiring process take from advertising to the end? Do we know? Because it seems like we're fast-tracking this position, but there's other positions in government that take six months. I'm trying to figure out what the difference is. Because if we can speed this one up and do 98% funding, how come we're not doing the rest of them that same way? Well, I'm in charge of this one. I don't mean that facetiously, but I mean, it was the one position, and I felt that since we had had so much conversation about it that I really needed to move this forward and move it forward quickly. So I have done the – we have done the position description, and we are going to get ready to go out with this one very shortly. And I think that Council Member Mazzotti had asked me the other day what my target was, and it was August the 1st that we were trying to do. Now, I don't know this market. I am hoping that we will not be at that level, at that salary level. Well, they'll be the highest person and highest paid person in the government. Yes, they would be at that level. I mean, bar none. And I'm just trying to figure out why we're doing 98% funding and the rationale behind it. Because I don't think you're going to hire him in July, him or her, the person in July. Do you think you're going to get him hired in a month? I'm hoping to do August the 1st. I won't make July 1st, no. No, I mean from July 1st to August 1st, 30 days. I mean, you can't hire him officially until we get back on break anyway. So that would probably make it another month. You're right. I'm just trying to, you know, because this opens up a whole other question of how come we can fast track this position but not others? because all we keep hearing in this council is it takes six months to hire one person. So just food for thought. If we can fast-track this one, surely then we can expedite our hiring process on everybody else too because we're budgeting it differently because of the necessity. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Are there other questions about this second page? While we're waiting for people to log in, there's Councilmember Farmer. I'm just going to make a motion to adopt these two pages as presented unless there's other questions. I have a couple questions, if you don't mind. Melissa, I wanted to go back to the about in the personnel position correction, about two-thirds of the way down there, your 2% salary increase for positions included in the new request. Can you clarify that a little bit more for me? Yeah, when we put the budget together, the new positions didn't take into account the 2% raise that employees were getting, so they were put in at a lower salary than when they're hired, they would be hired at that 2%. The new positions being which ones? Any that are in the budget? Any of them that are in the budget, in the general fund. So those positions, even though there are no people in them, they're automatically getting the 2% raise to the position? Yes, because of the increase. Because of the 2% increase, it affects the... To keep them at the level that the current employees would be. Okay, and so some of those would be budgeted at 75 percent? Yes. And do you know if they're all budgeted at 75 percent? Is that $16,850 number a 75 percent of 2 percent? I don't know. I don't know. I'd have to get that information. Okay, that's all right. It's kind of a small detail, but I was just trying to understand it. And then in the number 18, so the personnel changes resulting from ordinances and resolutions, abolishing and creating positions, the 402,000. Is that a reflection of what took place since April? That is actually a reflection of what took place since March 1st. That was the date and time that we pulled the personnel data out of the system. So it's anything that's March 1st through May 23rd. Okay. And so that is a balance of abolishments and creations? Yes, that. Okay. I think that's all the questions I had. Now, does anyone else have a question? If not, I'll go to Councilmember Farmer for his motion. Vice Mayor, I was just going to move to approve pages 1 and 2 as we have just gone through them. Okay, we have a motion to approve pages 1 and 2 by Councilmember Farmer, a second by Councilmember Kay. Is there any discussion of the motion? All right, I'm seeing none. All those in favor, will you please say aye. Anyone opposed? And if you can log in, please. We need two more votes. Has everyone logged in their vote? Not yet. Okay, now we have 15, except that one wasn't sitting down, so I'm not sure how we got 15. You gave a thumbs up? Okay. So that motion passed 15-0. And then with those changes approved to the general fund budget, that leaves a fund balance, a budgeted fund balance, if it... so far so far of 1.624 million 590 dollars correct yes that is correct all right in the general fund all right go ahead and move on okay um i submitted a revised sheet for the urban services fund today so i don't know if you all have that um a hard copy of that or not so it should say revised at the bottom of the sheet there's just one minor revision many of these items that we're going to discuss on here you've approved a part of them with the general fund the first one item number 22 that's the urban services portion of the excess insurance increase item number 23 is a personnel position correction and there were two additional public service workers vacant put in the mayor's proposed budget and this is removing those item number 24 is what we just discusses are changes that have taken place through ordinances and resolutions since March 1st item number 25 is employee turnover since March 1st item number 26 is the unemployment rate increase and this is the effect on the urban services fund and then item number 27 is the indirect cost allocation due to the changes. So with these changes in the Urban Services Fund, it's a net change, it's an increase of fund balance of $45,530 for a fund balance of $18,043,060. All right, are there any questions about the Urban Services Fund page that Melissa just presented. If not, do I hear a motion regarding Councilmember Farmer move to approve this. Councilmember Ellinger seconded. Any questions about the motion to approve the changes to the Urban Services Fund expenses? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? If you'll just quickly log in your vote they were all eyes I think that passes 15-0 all right all right we'll just keep rolling yes these next ones are easier the next one is a miscellaneous revenue fund item number 28 is the unemployment rate increase on this fund which was $60 and so item number 29 is $60 reduction in an operating account to account for that because this account has to balance so So it's a net change of zero. Okay. Do I hear a motion to? Thank you. Council Member Kay moved and Council Member Farmer seconded to approve. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes. 15-0. Okay. Okay. Now we're on to the sanitary sewer fund. And I'm starting to sound like a broken record, I think. number 30 is the insurance premium on the sanitary sewer fund this is their portion number 31 is accounting has set up a new department ID and section number for the cap program so this is just making the changes for that this has no net impact on the budget this is just an accounting issue item number 32 are the personnel changes that have happened since March 1st as well as item number 33. Item number 34 is the unemployment rate increase. Item number 35 is indirect cost allocation. And then item number 36 is that 2% salary increase for new positions in the budget. With these changes, it decreases the fund balance $123,220 for a fund balance of $4,852,640. Thank you. Are there any comments or motions? Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member K to approve. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? I believe that motion passed. 15-0. All right. Moving on to the Sanitary Sewer Construction Fund. items number 37 and 38 these are both the accounting for the cap program the new department id and section number and it's a net wash so there's no change to fund balance okay motion by council member farmer second by council member clark to approve the sanitary sewer construction fund items any discussion all those in favor say aye aye anyone opposed That motion passed, I believe 15-0. Okay. We'll keep rolling. Keep going. The Public Facilities Corporation Fund 4022, this is a correction. It is revenue that was transferred from the general fund, and the transfer out of the general fund was included in the mayor's proposed budget, but the transfer into the Public Facilities Corporation for the debt service was not included. So this is a correction to that. So it's a net increase to fund balance change of $575,290, which leaves a fund balance of $7,223,860. Do I hear a motion? Council Member Lawless moved approval. Council Member Akers seconded any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that passed. Okay. and now the water quality management fund item number 40 is the is a personnel correction this is removing one position of engineering a senior this is a seasonal position not a civil service position it was put in the budget as a full-time position and that was incorrect item number 41 is the changes that you have approved since March 1st item number 42 is the turnover since March 1st. Item number 43 is the unemployment rate increase and item number 44 is the indirect cost allocation. These changes total $175,840 of an increase to the fund and leaves a fund balance of $1,574,770. Questions? I hear a motion from Council Member Lawless, second from Council Member Kaye to approve. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passed 15-0. Go ahead. All right. The landfill fund, this is just the unemployment increase, and it's a reduction of $580. The fund balance after that is $5,446,260. I have a motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Kaye to approve. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? That motion passed 11 to nothing. Okay. Well, 12 to nothing. Thank you. We'll keep rolling here. Keep rolling here. Next is the right-of-way fund, item number 46. This is the unemployment rate increase. It's a reduction of $230 for a fund balance of $71,740. Move approval. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Kay. To approve, any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That passed. 11-12-0. Excuse me. Yes, 12. Go ahead. The next one is the Public Facilities Corporation Extended School Program. Item number 47 are the changes in personnel due to things that were passed since March 1st. Item number 48 is the unemployment rate increase. And item 49 is indirect cost allocation for a reduction of $44,610, leaving a fund balance of $120,460. Council Member Farmer moves. Council Member Henson seconds to approve any discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes. 12-0. All right. The next one is the Enhanced 911 Fund. Item number 50 are changes that you've passed since March 1st for personnel. item number 51 is the unemployment rate increase they total $8,560 of a reduction for a fund balance of seventy three thousand six hundred sixty dollars councilmember Kay moves approval armor seconds any discussion all those in favor say aye anyone opposed that passes 12-0 All right, the Police and Fire Retirement Fund revenue. This item number 52, these are adjustments based on the personnel model. So it's a wash. There's a difference of $100, but that's a rounding issue. So this one is just a wash. Basically, it's $100 difference, and the ending revenue is $52,988,980. Councilmember Farmer moves. Council Member Kay seconds to approve that revenue item. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that passed. 10-0. Thank you. All right. So the last one is the Police and Fire Retirement Fund expense, and this is the unemployment rate increase for the position there. So it's a $60 expense increase. So there's a rounding error there, so it's basically a wash. No problem. Do I hear a motion? Council Member Farmer moves and Council Member Kay seconds to approve this. Any questions or discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? That passes 10-0. All right, Council Members. Melissa, thank you very much. I think that finishes up the late items. Council members, do you want to take a five-minute break or keep on rolling? Does anyone need an amenity break? Some people have already taken it. Some people have already taken it. They're on it. So, okay, we'll roll right on then to the LINCS report. And, Melissa, if I can just reiterate from our beginning conversation at this meeting, and Commissioner O'Mara. The current, as of the late items and the revenue vote, the current general fund mayor's proposed budget fund balance is 1.624,590. So, Council Members, keep in mind that is what is now in the budget for fund balance. So we're going to start with the recommendations from the links. And if we want to take action today, I think, barring any opposition from you all, we can certainly do that. And we can work through these. and then we have a meeting scheduled on Tuesday when we can continue this. So I'll look to general government link, and there are some recommendations in here. Who's our general gov chair? Was that Council Member Ellinger? Okay. Do you want to just one last time present those? there were two i believe correct uh that's correct and the first one was the code for america that was in the mayor's proposed budget and and we uh chose not to put it in and it is up to the council if they want to keep that in are we supposed to make motions here because if we don't make a motion then and then it will I stay in. Yes, these will require motions and I was just going to go. Do we have any council members in the caucus room who might join us? And any in the council chamber? Thank you so much. I guess as chair of the length, then I'll make the motion that we do not fund the Code for America. Okay. There is a motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Lane, not to fund the Code for America. and so I would simply open this up for discussion on the motion. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I believe at the time the LINC made that recommendation, they had not seen the details of this proposal or had the presentation that we had the benefit of a few days ago. And I believe that that presentation has convinced me that this is a worthwhile way for this council to invest basically in the future of open government and transparency. So I will urge my fellow council members to vote no on this recommendation from the link. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to echo Council Member Kaye's comments, and I do believe that after the presentation on Tuesday that it was pretty evident how this program could increase our efficiency in government and our effectiveness in our programs within government. would be actually a tool for citizens to be able to access information within government and hold government accountable to our citizens as far as programs that we provide and services that we provide. And so anytime that we can digitize and have open source for our code enforcement and our building inspection and all of that I think is definitely a win-win for the city and for the citizens. So I will also not support that motion. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. I was on that link and agreed because the information was, they were just getting it, it was very unclear. And as I've said before, the amount of time that I spend and Andrea, my legislative aide, spends trying to track down these things. And the other thing that is so attractive to me is it is an open source program rather than a proprietary situation we've gotten into with PeopleSoft and some of our other programs. So I strongly support this, and it seems like we're getting a whole lot for not much. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have spoken on this matter before, and I think everybody knows that I feel strongly that Code for America is an excellent program and something we ought to take advantage of, even though I'd love to have the $12,000 to spend in 10th District. But I would recommend defeating this motion simply because I think we need to go with Code for America because it's going to make a major difference in the way we do business. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Does anyone else want to speak to the motion? Some fingers are nearly ready to log in. Council Member Akers. Okay, Councilmember Lane. Yeah, I did second this motion because, you know, I feel like this program has a lot of benefits to it, but I think it's a little bit premature for us to undertake a new system of evaluating the operation of the government until we have a really good accounting system where we can actually determine our cost of doing business. and to go ahead and enter into another program before we have our accounting system in order I think is not appropriate. Also, we don't have a chief information officer, and before we embarked on another program, I think that to have the input of the CIO would be appropriate also. So I would encourage us not to kill the deal forever, but I think it's an issue that we should delay until our accounting systems are better and it would be a CIO in there to give us his recommendations on this program. Thank you. Council Member Akers and then Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think we're running before we're walking on this thing. I would like to see some type of a workshop or something where we could have some interaction on this whole question of how this will work or how you perceive that it would work. I myself don't have any idea how you're going to make it work, what it does and what we gain and what we lose. And so I want to vote against this. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to make a motion to amend the current motion on the floor to approve the funding for Code for America contingent upon obtaining the $180,000 match from private funding by August 15th. Second. we have a motion to amend the motion and the amendment would say that we would approve the item contingent on getting the matching funds by august 15th is that did that reflect your motion yes ma'am okay and i believe i heard council member farmer second that motion. Now we have a few people on here. Would you like to speak to the motion? No, ma'am. The original motion. Oh, the motion to amend? No, the original motion. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Mr. Farmer, did you want to speak to the motion to amend? Sure, I seconded it, yes. You're on the list, so I didn't know if you wanted to wait. No, no, you're right. And I was on for the other one, but I can talk anytime, anywhere. I feel like the administration has something they want to bring to us at this point or say, or you're standing there for a reason. Sure. Thank you. The memo I just passed around clarified a couple of things, and I just wanted to raise those at the microphone if I could. First off, as you heard earlier, we are planning on hiring the CIO quickly, so the person would be on board before we get started in February. You know, the CIO could have a leadership role in this effort, and I think they should. Secondly, we have been selected as a finalist this year. I think it would be a bad decision not to go forward right now. I don't see any reason to wait because there's no guarantee that we'll be accepted again. And I just want to make those two points. What about the ability for us or the administration or all of us to come up with this matching $180,000 by that date in August? Do you see that as feasible? It's a requirement from Code for America. So we have six weeks or, well, we have a little bit longer than that now. But you heard Code for America commit to helping us raise that money. And we're going to get started as soon as possible if the $180 is approved. Thank you, sir. I agree with the amendment. I think it works very well for the purposes of the Code for America. Thank you. Councilmember Myers, did you want to speak to the amendment? Councilmember Lawless, to the amendment? Yes, Vice Mayor. One question. May I ask a question? To the amendment? Yes, of course. It was my understanding in the presentation with the Code for America folks that if the money wasn't raised by August 15th, they were willing to work with us to do that. Is that it? I'm just wanting to know. Actually, they committed to helping us raise the money before August 15th. Okay, thank you. That was my question. Councilmember Lane, did you want to speak to the amendment? Yes, I had a question for Mr. Emmons. As the Chief of Staff, do you feel that our accounting system is working effectively and that we can operate the government cost-effectively with the information we receive on that? I would defer the question. Sally, would you like to, Bill, would you like to help? please commissioner o'mara welcome back thank you short straw day council member lane i feel that our people saw platform is reliable and it is accurate i think that our management reporting can improve and I think that our budgeting process that we go through on a monthly basis throughout the year, I'm not talking about the creation of the budget, but the review of the budget, can be improved. I've worked already with the budget department on how we can make that improvement and I'm committed to increasing our management reporting and our management oversight. Mr. O'Meara, I think you've done a very good job in your capacity, but I still don't think our accounting system is at the level it should be. The economy is going to be flat for a while, and we have to operate as efficiently as possible. And the only way you can run a business or a government or any financial institution efficiently is you've got to have good accounting. I think it's got to be timely, reliable, and available, and transparent, and we do not have that right now. The reason that I'm opposed to going into the other program is because we don't have that in our basic accounting system, and we bring on a new program, and we'll be focusing on that. We won't even be focusing on improving our accounting system. We'll be looking at this other data on delivering services, And I would suppose, I haven't seen all the information on it, but a lot of the data that would go into that would be probably coming out of PeopleSoft. And the old saying, garbage in, garbage out, if we can't give them good information on our costs and operations and all that, I don't know how we can really do their program and make it a valid, translucent way to showcase how we're operating the government. I did not bring this up when we were in the meeting on the Internet because I didn't want to say anything that would be derogatory to our city with the people from out of state. But I do feel this is a serious deficiency we have. And we don't have the new CIO even hired. We're just ready to run the ad. What if the CIO came in and said this is a lousy idea. He doesn't want to do it or she doesn't want to do it. But I just think we're jumping ahead of the timeline that we need to get into. At a future date, I would be very supportive, but I don't think we're ready to spend $360,000, take on a new program, and allocate a lot of human man hours to put this program together. But we could invest that in our accounting system, having a better accounting data. That's where I'm coming from, from my position on that. And as you know, I'm a very positive guy and proactive, and I'm not trying to be negative here. I just think that's not the best allocation of our money, particularly when our revenues, as you said, are very flat and the future is uncharted at this time. So thank you all. And I would be happy to have you respond to my comment if you'd like to. I don't want to filibuster you over here. Okay, that's all I have to say. Thank you. If I could just, could I add one just in response? You mentioned the CIO and that person thinking this was a bad idea. Well, you mentioned several things, but that was the first that I would like to address. I can't imagine a CIO coming into Lexington and telling us that this is not a good program to participate in. We had a conference call with Andrew McLaughlin, who's a former chief information officer at the White House, who helped start Code for America. And he said it's just been overwhelming, the response he's gotten across the country from CIOs everywhere. Secondly, you get three fellows for the $360,000. Those folks are going to be the ones doing the labor and putting this program in place. We're not going to bog down the CIO with this program. They should be involved from a leadership perspective. But they have lots of other things they need to be focused on with enterprise solutions and IT. and beyond that i think it's a smart investment i really do so i think we can work on dual tracks improving those financial systems that you're talking about also improving efficiency and customer service delivery to the citizens and that's what code for america does councilmember meyers thank you vice mayor so i did want to speak before the motion was made so I want to speak to the original motion at some point, but on this motion, I want to clarify one thing. Does this motion say that if the administration doesn't come forward with whoever is going to donate the $180,000 by this date, then we're not going to pull the trigger? Because Council Member Lawless said that this other group was willing to help us raise the money, but my concern is that they can help us raise the money, but if it still isn't raised, you guys are going to have to come back here to us to pay the rest of it. There's no way around that once we get started, right? We can't just drop out of it. Would you like me to respond? Well, I want to respond to the motion part, what the motion said, and then maybe you can respond to the other part. Would that be okay? Sure. The motion said was to amend the original motion to approve it, to approve this $180,000 contingent on matching $180,000 by August 15th. My interpretation would be if there's no matching money by August 15th, there's no project. That's what that motion said. Okay, thank you. And I have gotten a head shake from the motion. I think that's what the motion says, yes. In the memo I handed out, I did say that we did not plan on coming back to Council for a request for any more money. $180 is what we're going to request. So if we can't raise the matching funds, we're probably not going to participate. I don't know how it would happen otherwise. Okay. But you go ahead, Mr. Myers. I won't drag it out. But if this motion passes, then it's kind of mute either way, right? Because if they don't raise the money, then we're not going to pull the trigger. That's what the motion says, and I would say the administration would respect that. And if the matching funds aren't here, the administration would not proceed. Is that your understanding? I was just trying to get clarification from Bill on what this meant for the budget. So if the motion passes, it would mean basically that the $180,000 is in the budget for FY14. But there's a rule associated with it. Right, not in spent until we bring a resolution or whatever the proper channel is to get your approval. Okay. And since it's Councilmember, you're welcome, Acre's motion, did you want to clarify? I just had a question whether I was proposing to pay for this with cash or bonding, and I think that had been discussed on Tuesday night as well, and that was raised, I believe, in Council Member Ellinger's link. So I would recommend cash versus bonding. That's a different issue than the motion, but I think it's an important issue. Okay. So if you can kind of hold that thought. Now, Council Member Kay. Yes, I want to speak to the... Don't go away. I want to come back to the substantive motion, but right now I would like to call a question on the amendment. All right. There's been a motion and a second to call the question on the amendment, and I have several people lined up, so you'll need to vote accordingly. do you the motion is do you want to call the question if you do you vote yes if you don't you vote no hang on all those in favor please say aye all those opposed to calling the question no will you log in please It's obvious. We will not call the question. That motion failed 3 to 11. So the amendment is still on the floor for discussion. Council Member Myers, or Council Member Kaye, did you want to speak to the amendment now that it's still on the floor? Or not? I'll wait to speak to the substantive motion. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Myers to the motion. No, I've already spoken to the motion. Okay. Council Member Henson to the motion to amend. I think Council Member Aker's motion is a fair motion. And not being a computer geek, I think that everything I've heard about Coal for America, that it would be a good thing for our city. And I spoke with the mayor about it. I've spoken with Jamie about it and Shay and then looked at some things online. So I'm in an agreement with, I'm just, I guess I should say, I'm not as excited about it as they are, but yet with my background, I, you know, I'd have to overlook that. But anyway, I am in favor of the amendment as long as we can raise the $180,000 match. So thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think going back to the issue that Council Member Aker has raised about whether we bond this or whether it's cash is very relative to this. Because if it's bonded, there's a lot of people who would not support it being bonded. So I think that needs to be part of the motion. if she's anticipating using it as cash, that's one whole different issue. But it wasn't part of the motion, so I guess it's going to be left up to the committee to decide. Making an amendment? Because the original motion didn't specify. Councilmember Chair of the Lake. Well, the motion, if it did not specify, I'll be specific. It dealt with bonding because that's what was put into the budget by the mayor was to bond it. So we're just saying we're against what the mayor had said, and that was certainly one of the reasons why that we were not for it. But in this motion, we said against the 180 and its bonding. That's what I thought. I just wanted to clarify that. So right now we're talking about bonding it. It's listed as a bonded item. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Well, people are dropping on and off. Council Member Myers, you're next. Are you on to speak to the amendment? Not the amendment. Council Member Beard. To the amendment. No. Councilmember Lawless to the amendment. I'm not sure if it's the all right which part. Okay well I see no one else who wishes to speak to the amendment although I have a couple questions. A couple questions about the memo that you just now passed around. The last paragraph says there will be a potential 10%, $36,000 a year. Perhaps that would be the high estimate of annual maintenance. Now, if, and I appreciate, I did ask the question of what would be the annual maintenance, and I appreciate that Mr. Cottle brought this in the report. Now, if a council down the road, of course this council can't obligate any future council to that. If they decide not to fund the annual maintenance, I guess the program would go away. Is that a fair assumption? I don't think it would disappear. I think we would have to identify another source of money to pay for it. Okay. But it's a range of 3 to 10 percent. We don't know exactly yet. Okay. Is that based on what other cities have experienced? That estimate was a collaboration between Code for America and Chad Cotland, who's experienced. Okay. All right. I appreciate that number. And then this is kind of about this amendment. So if the Code for America is approved and what we heard on Tuesday is put into action, How do you view the role of council aides in their districts in terms of this type of constituent work that would roll straight to a NIMS system as opposed to the council offices? Well, I'm happy to let Derek talk more about the NIMS specifically. It's his proposal, but the way that I understand it, that it would be a much quicker and more expedient system to get information between aides and constituents. A lot of the work that council aides do is with constituents on some of the problems they have in neighborhoods. So I'm just trying to clarify for myself, a lot of that particular work would go away, correct? I would disagree with that. I think what this will do is help your aides be able to work with constituents quicker. This is not in any way replacing the aides. This is allowing the aides and anybody else, for that matter, to be able to access information that the constituents are looking for, whether it's if a home has a permit for construction down the street, whatever else it is. It is information that will be at our fingertips as opposed to having to call and leave a message and wait for a response and go through the process that we go through right now. So we view this as a good thing. And as was mentioned on Tuesday, when Code for America is here, part of what they will do is meet with various people, including council members and aides, because we don't want to develop a system that's not going to be useful or functional for the aides, because we realize that they're on the front lines every day, just like some people in the mayor's office dealing with constituents. And so we need to make sure it works for them. Okay. All right. I appreciate that. That explains it, I think. All right. Yeah. Just one little extra addition. Code for America is all about process improvement, and they layer technology on the back end to make things work quicker. So that's a brief explanation. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Now, I have four people on here. are you to speak to the amendment? So you are now, Council Member Wires? I was actually going to ask a follow-up question to the question that you just asked. Okay, and then Council Member Masati and then Council Member Kay. Jamie or Shay, either one. About a year ago, a year and a half ago, Scott Shapiro came and spoke to the council in a workshop on the fifth floor about a system that did exactly what you guys are saying this will do. He said that the system that you guys were going to put together would allow you to take, if a constituent put in a call to 311, then if they gave their cell phone number, then they would get a text message back when the issue was done or progress text or however you wanted to do that. And the council didn't like that whole system. My question is, how is this different than that? Because it sounds to be exactly the same thing that you guys are going to put together. You talked about correlating all this different data together and that our constituents would be able to interact completely in the process of getting updates and all those things. So what's different here? I can't speak exactly to what Mr. Shapiro proposed a year and a half ago, but what I can tell you is this is more than just LexCol. I'm following up on LexCol as well. This is a range of databases that currently exist within the government. and it would really help provide a better again there's a couple different benefits to this there's an internal benefit about internal divisions being able to share information much better so right now code enforcement police zoning waste management don't always know what's going on in the neighborhood yet there are multiple problems that are plaguing the neighborhood but they cannot respond succinctly so one of the things this will do is allow that data to be out of those silos and help internally. Okay, so let me ask this question. And we might want to go back and look at the data, look at the information that Scott gave us, because I think it was more than just 3-1-1. But my question then would be, if he was able to begin to put together a system like this in-house, then why can't we look at doing that instead of spending $360,000 to do it outside? So I guess if the first thing to do would be to look at what he was proposing before to really see what's different and why they thought they had the capacity inside to do that. Well, I can say that having talked to Mr. Shapiro about the NIMS system, he's never once told me that this is the same system he proposed before. And I think to try to do this internally, we'd have to look at what the cost would be internally as well. But I think to put together the system that we're talking about with Code for America will really allow us to tap into the resources that they bring to the table. The experience they have about bringing these different, again, the software that they've developed in their previous lives is going to allow us to do possibly a whole lot more than we could do by ourselves. I think that's a fair assessment to say, particularly with staff members that currently have a lot of projects on their plates. I think it would be difficult to say that with current staffing and the current responsibilities that our staff has right now, that they could devote anywhere near as much time as three people coming in here to devote their time completely to a project for a year? Well, I don't know that he was going to do that completely in-house, but it might have been cheaper than $360,000. But let me ask you one final question on this, and that is, can you guys guarantee that at the end of this $360,000, we're actually going to get the system and all the software and everything that's needed? Or is there a possibility that once we pay the $360,000, at the end of the day, they're going to say, we got this far, but this is what you're going to have to do to implement. Because what I saw on PBS was that was the case in some cities. From what we heard the other night when we asked them that, they deliver a software product at the end of the one-year process. That's what they've done in every other time. And I don't know of any city in the past that has not had anything delivered. I know that there are some cities that say, how do we do the ongoing costs, which is a pretty typical thing with all software systems. Let me interrupt you politely just for a second. If you go to PBS and look at the show that they had on there earlier this month, you will find cities that said that. I did watch it, and I saw one city interview, and I did not think that's what they said. I thought they were more talking about the ongoing cost as opposed to the implementation of it. There were both. Maybe it's just a difference of how we saw it. I think there are both. Yes. I was just going to say that Code for America addressed that sustainability issue in the presentation the other day. I'm not sure if you were in here when they talked about it. Not so much the sustainability, because that's my question after we get through this motion. But I just want to make sure that if this goes forward, when they're done for that $360,000, the deliverable that will allow us to do whatever it is we're supposed to be doing. And what their response was, was yes, because I believe that Council Member Kaye asked that question, and they talked about how they develop it throughout the year, and they go through various versions over six-week periods. and so at the end we will have a functional web application that's that's what I wanted to hear yeah going forward we could enhance it but we will have a product that is the deliverable they guarantee and we will have a contract with them saying that okay thank you thank you uh councilmember Massadi thank you I'm not sure if this is this on the amendment can you how of you rephrase the amendment for me or reiterate it. Okay, the amendment. Repeat it. Well, if you don't mind, I want to make sure I said word for word because I don't have it in front of me. I apologize. Okay, the motion is to amend the original motion to approve it, approve the expenditure contingent upon matching $180 by August 15th. It was $180. It would be a bargain. $180,000. Did I say $180? Okay. $180,000 by August 15th. And to clarify this, this is via a bond? Yes, the bond is what's included in the motion because that's how the link brought it. Okay. That's what I need to know. There's been no amendment to the bond. That's all right. Thank you. Okay, where are we? Anybody else? Were you finished, Council Member Massadi? Are you to the motion, Council Member Kaye? The amendment. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Vice Mayor. It seems to me that what we're talking about in talking about this amendment is two things, and I'm going to risk muddying the waters further because it seems to me one of the issues has to do with the source of funds. And so I would offer an amendment, if it's appropriate, to the amendment that the funding source be out of the general revenue and not a bond. Second. Okay. There is an amendment to the amendment to expend the $180,000 from the general services fund, general budget, general fund budget. We've been here a long time. General fund budget. And that it not be bonded. And Council Member Massadi seconded that. Now, okay, we're going to discuss the amendment to the amendment. And this is simply about moving it from a bonded project to a cash-funded in the budget project. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the amendment? Council Member Lawless. I think we're at amend-ize instead of amend-ize. Anyway, if the money is not raised, would the bond have to be issued prior to? Or are we just making a commitment to it? Okay. The motion on the floor is to change it. It would not be a bonded project. And so if this passes, that's a moot question. If it doesn't pass, then you could... Well, it might influence how I vote. Well, it can't be bonded right until the matching money. I mean, if the other amendment passes, when would the bonds be sold? I was just communicating with our bond council about waiting until later this month to talk to them about whatever bond package the council approves in the budget, and we would talk about timing. Usually, it's in the October-November time frame. So doing it quicker is very challenging. We could do it quicker, but I'm not seeing that unless the market is demanding it. regardless it would not happen by August 15th okay so does that help your yes it does and I would never mind that's okay I think Commissioner wanted to add something else to it if I could I rose to make the comment that the administration is not advocating one type of funding over the other my advocacy is to look at the project and think if it has merit. Once approved, we'll talk about how to fund it. Several council members, Council Member Myers, talked about, and you asked some questions, and I'd like the freedom to do so also, if I might. Yes, it's your time. Okay. As far as constituents accessing this. Well, except that it needs to be to the motion. Well, I think his questions were to the motion. This is just simply cash versus bonding. If I can wait. Now, I see no one else who wants to speak to this. So we'll take a vote on whether to change. If you want to change the funding to general fund, no bonding, you will vote yes. If you don't, you'll vote no. Vice Mayor? Yes. Do we have a second on this yet? Yes, we did. Council Member Massadi seconded it. All those in favor of the amendment on the floor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? all right that motion passes so if the now there's a current amendment on the floor and it is to approve the motion to fund this and it would be from the general fund not bonding contingent upon matching money 180 000 by august 15th now if you want to speak to the amendment please log in council member beard are you still on i've forgotten in which queue i'm in i'll tell you the truth i this sounds a lot more like the first uh motion rather than the second or could fit or could fit it being the first the first this is the amendment to approve the project contingent on what is the first what is the first motion then the first motion was not to fund it well not to fund it was to disapprove it so never heard of that happening okay like that in that order that do you have a comment no okay council member k thank you vice mayor um i just want to reiterate a couple points which i think have been made before in the presentation that we had on tuesday and perhaps a little bit today and that is, first of all, we're being asked to approve $180,000 that will be matched by $180,000. So we're getting $360,000 worth of value for $180,000. Secondly, this is a national program that recruits the best and the brightest, people who are committed to using their technical expertise to help government function better. It would bring three fellows here for a year. They would be connected to a national network, as we would. We would get the direct benefit of finally, in my estimation, moving forward on a project which we have been woefully behind on, which is increasing the transparency of government and increasing the ease of access of our citizens and ourselves to the information that we have in government. And finally, we put ourselves in the right league nationally in terms of being an innovative community. And for all those reasons, I would urge that we approve this amendment. Thank you. You're welcome. I see no one else who is on to speak. Oh, now we have someone. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Not sure if this is a motion or not. If it's not, that's okay. but a comment was just made that this increases transparency and I'm trying to understand how this does that. I mean, if a constituent can call and get information about what's happening, they can do that now. I don't see that this is somehow making things that are happening in the dark. The reason I jumped up is because I've gotten really excited about this project the more that I've learned about it, like really excited about the potential. And it has to do with what you're saying. The thing that's so interesting about this is the data already exists out there. And it already is open record public information. What this will do is speed up the process for people to even be able to access it or even know it exists. Because we have a lot of data sets that are out there now that we probably don't even know exist, that are in one department or another. You put those out there, and you're able to see trends, you're able to know the status of your neighborhoods on the issues that you might be concerned about but didn't know who to ask. So this is not reinventing any wheels. We're not coming up with data out of the blue that we didn't have before that we could start measuring other things. What this is doing is taking the data that is already available from an open record standpoint that belongs to the people and saying access it at your own time, 12 o'clock midnight, 2 o'clock in the morning, doesn't matter what it is. You don't have to go through the whole open records process to get something that you should already have access to. Does that answer your question? Yes. And use it. So I agree with that, and I like that aspect of this. But I would say that that's not – the word increase transparency I don't think is the correct vernacular to use. I mean, the information is there. People may not know it's there, may not know how to access it, but it's not like you're making anything available that's not available. You're just making it available in a different way. I'm not arguing this point to say this isn't a good thing to do. Sure. I simply don't want people to think that if we don't do this, somehow we're not being transparent. I guess that's really my point. I agree, and I don't mean to belabor the issue, but I do think that what this is is fundamentally a cultural change in how governments operate and think about the data we have. Because oftentimes we think that it's ours. And if you want it, you need to do an open records request. What this does, it's truly a cultural change, and you're exactly right. I mean, people have access to this information, but by the government thinking about it differently and doing the crowdsourcing and working with the CFA brigade that's here of the tech people that want to give their time at no expense to us to help us improve things, that's where we get the benefit from. If they want to do this at no expense, can they just do the whole project at no expense? I don't know. I mean, what we're going to get is a whole bunch of people, more than just the folks that we have in Lexington, with all of the experience that they have. One of the fellows from Louisville is an executive at Google. But is that not a valid question, though? if we have all these open sources here that want to dive into this thing, then why not just let them dive into it? Okay. Do you want them to answer or, okay, we have several council members to speak on the motion. So we're not really in a debate here except with each other. Okay. It's how I'm viewing this and we're losing our council members. So if I could go ahead. Are you finished, Council Member Myers? Council Member Scutchfield has not spoken at all. And I would like to go to you first and then Council Member Ford. I don't believe you've spoken twice. You've spoken. Have you spoken before on this issue? I think so. Okay, well, let's go to you first and then Council Member Scutchfield. Council Member Ford. I'm not certain which amendment we're on. Okay. And I'm just going to say this. I really think every council member has, of course, the right to bring an amendment or such. Had we voted the issue up or down, I think we could have gotten to the same resolution. It doesn't have to be a unanimous decision. I'm going to continue to wait patiently, hopefully, for the opportunity to vote or however we decide to go forward with this process. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I appreciate that. I think this is the epitome of making the sausage. um council member scutchfield thank you vice mayor um one of the things that they went over on the presentation on tuesday was that there would be a consolidation between our lex call and this software this web enabled program is that what you all also believe I think what it will do is really allow us to integrate those databases in a new way. I don't think it's going to make LexiCol go away. It's just going to allow us to put all those databases together in a way that works and weaves them in in a much better way, in a much better format. I will say one of my biggest problems, one of the companies I used to work for would continually get new programs that was going to change the way we communicated with our customers. And what ended up happening is we had three or four different databases that required even more work to be able to upkeep and to look at and to get information, and it became watered down. And I have a concern with us having another database, another search engine, and not trying to get rid of one of the ones we have. Right. This isn't a new database. this is aggregating the databases into one. So it's taking all those different databases we have and overlaying the data together in a clear, consistent way so you can actually see what's going on in your neighborhoods in a way that we can't now. So again, we talked about some of the features we would look for, such as a dashboard that would allow residents to know what's going on in their neighborhoods comprehensively. So from police and code and lexical issues and waste issues and other databases, they could see what's going on. Council members could also quickly access those different databases as well. And again, this would also be built in a way that as new, you know, as we can, LexiCall system was a homegrown system. As we move towards the replacement of it at one point, it would still be built in a way that we could integrate that new system. But LexiCall is still what you would call 311 is still going to be, you know, the number to call the database will still be there. But this will allow us to access the 311 data as well as other data in a much more consistent manner. in a way that we can't now. Multiple issues. I would just briefly add that I think 311 will be able to use the dashboard as well to help them deliver information to the folks they're talking to in the neighborhoods. I'm just concerned that there's going to be duplication of persons' jobs, having to make sure that it gets into both. Right. Well, I would say Code for America is focused on process improvement rather than process duplication. So as we're going through brainstorming next February, I think we need to make that a very high priority on our list. Council Member K. Thank you, Vice Mayor. When I'm done with my comments, I am going to make an attempt to call the question again. But before I do that, I want to add just a couple things. Well, okay. I'm not prepared to call the question. I believe I have a floor for comment. Okay. Here's the issue. We have a speak twice rule, and I'm about to invoke it because we have several council members who have spoken three or four times, and it's almost 530. And I respect your right to speak again if the council just wants to not follow its speak twice rule. Vice Mayor, this is not a council meeting. This is a committee of the whole meeting, and I don't believe that you can limit debate on a council of the whole meeting under Robert's rules of order. I believe our rules say that we can limit debate to speak twice in our official meetings, which the committee of the whole is one. If the council doesn't want to do that, that's fine. We can keep going. And I see no motion to do that. So, Council Member Kaye, you just happened to be at the top of the list. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So, my comments. I think Council Member Myers has raised a good point. We don't want to leave the impression that government is not accessible or transparent or responsive. I think we try to do that as best we can. but anybody who deals with this government or almost any other government entity knows that we are not as transparent, we're not as accessible, and we're not as accountable as we could be. And I have been working on, I'll take a specific example, I've been working on code enforcement for about a decade before I got on council, and then for the two years since I've been on council, trying to get transparency, accessibility, and accountability. I can go and get their records, but it's not easy. And there's no way easily to aggregate that data. There's no easy way to analyze that data. There's no easy way, really, to hold people as accountable as I think we need to hold them in order to provide the services we should be providing to our community. This has the potential to increase transparency, accessibility, and accountability. It does not interfere with any other system. It basically makes government more efficient in so many ways that it seems like I'm a little bit mystified why there's the kind of resistance there is to it. But nonetheless, having said all that, I call the question. We have a motion and a second to call the question. And I will ask if you want to call the question and vote on it, you vote yes. If you don't and you want to continue debate, you vote no. All those in favor of calling the question say aye or log in aye. Aye. Anyone opposed to calling the question? Okay, that motion passes 10 to 2. You're one for one tonight on calling the question. Thank you. The question has been called. And the question on the floor is to amend the original motion to approve the $180,000 expenditure in the general fund, not bonded, contingent upon matching $180,000 by August 15th. All those in favor, please say aye and log in aye. Aye. Would there be a vote on the motion? This is the motion. This is the amendment. This is the amendment. This is the amendment. And log in, please, your vote. All those opposed, say nay or vote nay. All right, we have 12 yea and two abstentions. So that motion passes. So the motion on the floor becomes the motion as amended, which is to approve the $180,000, leave it in the budget, contingent upon matching $180,000 matched by August the 15th. I actually did not approve. Because I... The amendment was to approve. So that becomes the motion. Motion. The motion. But we have discussion now. Yes, there is discussion now, absolutely. So log in, please. council member massadi no council member beard thank you vice mayor um i'm not sure who out there i need to call up to the podium but i want to the first time i heard of code of america was tuesday and that's a fact Shay I knew nothing about it there's a talking head up here every now and then that was talking and then you know there was a presentation at the podium and I don't I don't know why we cannot sit down and talk through these things as opposed to wait and do that up here but my issue is open records a constituent wants open records on some issue the law department has got to bless it how do you How do you handle things like that where you have built-in roadblocks to control issues of secrecy? I mean secrecy, but secrecy to the point that it isn't secrecy as far as we're concerned. It's the individual involved secrecy. First, I would say that Code for America has described their process as very complicated. So when they come to Lexington, we have to identify all those hurdles that we have to get through. And open records is clearly one of them. So it's going to take some time to work through each. But Janet, do you have it? I think there's – sorry about that. You have quite an effect on things. Commissioner Graham. I'm here all week now. On the open records issue, I think our open records policy has identified certain types of records that are always pretty much open, like certain applications and that kind of thing. There are some things, of course, as you know, that we want to review for privilege or email privacy, things like that. So those issues would still have to be reviewed. So you'd have to build that into the software to be able to select? How would you operate with that? I think it could be handled just through a couple different ways. And we do that currently with the RAIDS online, which is the police data, which gives a block rather than a specific address, but still shows a point on the map so that people can understand where things are in their general neighborhood and what general block the crimes are occurring in. You know, it's a field within a database that could easily be transposed or put in a way that would still allow the privacy functions while providing the information in a useful manner. Okay. Well, if that can be done, that's fine. Again, I don't know the details of how this whole thing is rolled out and worked. That's why I was asking for a workshop or something where we could have some give and take without having to wait for an opportunity on the First Amendment or the Second Amendment or the Third Amendment. Well, from this point forward, we try to get the information out there as early as possible, but we understand and appreciate how much you all get and have to sort through. The mayor did talk about it briefly in his proposed budget speech, and it was in the budget documents that we gave to the council, as well as a detailed email that came out before the link started. That said, if it's approved, we do want to have more interaction with the council clearly, especially working up to February when the fellows would come to town so that we can collaborate together. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. I just want to maybe make a closing thought here. My not supporting this is because I'm looking at this issue as if I were a taxpayer, one of the taxpayers that we represent here on the council, and would I be more interested in spending the money that we allocate for the Code for America partnership to improving our accounting system, making our government more efficient in operations? We're spending about a half a billion dollars a year in the Urim County government. If we save 1%, that is $5 million a year. So there's a lot of potential to save money and operate more efficiently. If we had $5 million a year more, that's about the amount of the tax increase that we're talking about for the franchise fee that we'd be adding on all of the people who use utilities in Fayette County. So that's the reason that I'm opposed to it. and and and I would further say and councilmember Kay made me think of this is that when I first ran for council that was one of my top priorities was to have a better cost accounting system to operate government and I know that councilmember Stenet, councilmember Myers, councilmember McCord, there were many other council members that supported that and that's why we tried to upgrade our previous accounting system, and that has never met the level of achievement to operate our government efficiently, and I think we need to stay on course there and not take on a new project until we have better accounting available. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Let me try to make a few points here. In first place, I think we'd be making a very serious mistake not to take advantage of this opportunity. I feel that very strongly. It was suggested that maybe we should postpone this, and I would suspect that if we turn this down, that there won't be a future opportunity. I'd also like to say, remind everybody that this is an investment This is investment of government. This is investment of our taxpayers. And I think the taxpayers would think we were really smart to do this because it's going to benefit government. It's going to make government more efficient. It's going to make the government more transparent. It's going to do a lot of things that we can't do by ourselves. I want everybody to remember, too, that this is a long-term investment. This is not a 2014 investment. This is an investment in the next several years. And what it will do to make our government more efficient is long-term. It's not a one-year project. And then I think to answer Council Members Lane's concern about accounting, and I certainly don't disagree with that at all, but I think it becomes somewhat immaterial at this point. Because I think the accounting is going to take care of itself, and maybe it would even help us if we had this program in place. And indeed, I think in terms of accounting and what would be good for the taxpayers, I think probably most people would understand that this long-term project would be more valuable than each of us spending $12,000 in some way that is not decided at all. And then to Council Member Scutchfield's point, I think in a sense, and I understand exactly what she has said, and I don't disagree with that as well, But I think maybe this approach may solve some of the problems that she is addressing. And then finally, let me ask this question. Will we be a better government? Will we be a better government by going through this process? You can all answer that in your own way. I'll answer it for myself that I think there is absolutely no question that it will make Lexington Fayette County government much better because of it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll be brief. I want to explain my vote against the amendment and against this line item. we all dedicate our time as council members to divide and convene in council links with the understanding that our time is limited and understanding that we cannot be experts of all subject matter as it pertains to the budget there were three council members who served us as representatives of the link and for whatsoever reason with their discussion on this issue they brought forward their recommendation not to fund it that doesn't mean that the council automatically takes the link's recommendation on face value, but there's not enough information for me. The administration has had a lot of time and has used a lot of time. I'll say this evening, explaining it, I don't think it was the best use of our time collectively. I'm going to go with what the link proposed initially. If council members collectively disagreed, we could have voted up or down about an hour ago. I'm going to support, I'm going to vote against the amendment and lend my consideration to what the link brought us forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Lawless. I was a member of that link and I strongly support this and at that time the proposal was not well fleshed out and we were concerned about it being bondable. I also would like to state that I am constantly, and I mean probably ten calls in the last five or six days from constituents in my district who are afraid to call the police because they're afraid of retaliation. Two of those were students. Some were long-term residents. They're afraid to report to code enforcement, and so I have to go kind of around the mulberry bush to do that. It is egregious that in the third district, those neighborhoods live in fear of retaliation, such as, I'll burn your house down if you ever call the police again. A student who's afraid to leave her dog in the backyard because she asked her neighbors to quieten down, and she's afraid they'll be poisoned. People who, so those folks are not accessing 3-1-1. they're not accessing calling the police because they're afraid. I have to go out and look at these places and visit the neighborhoods and the students and having this information, the amount of time I spend trying to track down whether or not there's a building permit, whether or not what code enforcement has cited, when it's going to be finished, etc., is an enormous amount of my personal time, and including seven days a week, sometimes at 2 o'clock in the morning. So they could access that without having to do that. I could access it, and Andrea could access it. And it is absolutely, you know, so if you go, one of my constituents go into building inspection to get, has to file an open records request, whereas it is not necessary to do that. this would be there. So I can't tell you how critical this is for the health and sustainability of many of our neighborhoods, as well as being a progressive, forward-thinking, transparent government that people can look to with pride. And so I strongly urge you to support this. It's a pittance, and I don't see the connection between that and our accounting software that is getting better, but four years ago couldn't even get correct paychecks out. So thank you, and please, I urge you to support this. Thank you. I have no one else signed up to speak. And the motion on the floor is to approve, keeping in the budget $180,000 to fund Code for America, contingent upon matching $180,000 by August the 15th. and this motion also includes that the project will not be bonded, and so it is a motion in the affirmative. If you want to support Code for America in this way, you vote yes. If you do not, you vote no. All those in favor, please say aye and log in as aye. Aye. All those opposed? please vote nay. And it looks like this motion has failed. The motion is failed by a seven to eight vote. So. Okay, Vice Mayor, that was the first one on the general government link. There are 42 total between links and individuals, so at this rate we might need more time. Do you have a quick one you want to bring forward? I'll try. I will bring the number 21, which has to deal with the coroner. And we discussed the need for another van. And in the mayor's proposed budget, there was $18,000 to replace the Taurus for another car. And the coroner wished to have a van instead of a car. so we requested $20,000 to go towards the cost of replacing the car with the van, and this will be from the fleet services budget. So I move that we add additional $20,000 to the coroner. So moved. Second. Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Ellinger, a second by Council Member Myers, to add number 21 to the budget, which is an expenditure of $20,000 for the corner van. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? And if you can log your vote in, please, electronically. Okay. Okay. We have, has everyone voted? Everybody's here. Everybody was here. We should have, there we got 13. That motion passes 12 to 1 with two absent. We can start the next one or we can recess. I know you wanted to give a few minutes before the 6 o'clock meeting. I do. Council Members, Council Member Ellinger has one more. item and it probably is going to generate a good bit of discussion. So my inclination is to start with that Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock, which is when our next meeting is, if that would suit you. And that will give you 10 or 12 minutes to eat and use the restroom. We do have a couple people who want to speak. We normally don't have public comment at these budget meetings, but if it's your pleasure, Council, we'll hear them. There are two speakers signed up. If you'll quickly come to the podium. Oh, we only have one. Which one? Mr. Robert Riggs, do you want to speak? please join us come to the podium give your name and address and you'll have three minutes mayor i won't take that long i'm robert riggs i'm here representing the aviation museum and supportive councilman meyer and due to the length of your session this afternoon we're going to get together at a later date and come forward to the council with a better resolution all right Thank you. And appreciate the opportunity. I'm so sorry you waded through this whole thing, but it's a good thing to view, isn't it? Well, we're going to talk to the council about STEM education and what the Aviation Museum is doing for the community and how the council can help the Aviation Museum. All right. We welcome you back then. Thank you. Thank you very much. Nice to see you. Nice to see you. All right, council members, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Some of you. All those in favor, and we'll see you Tuesday at 9 a.m., Say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? We're adjourned.