# General Government Committee - January 14, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 14, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3207 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3207?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-01-14 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 8,499 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government Committee met on January 14, 2014, at 11:00 AM, with Kay presiding as Chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session. The November 5, 2013 Committee Summary was approved, while three additional items—Move Human Resources (Links/Gorton), Barrier Free Parks (Links/Gorton), and Items Referred—were deferred for future consideration. The committee took six motions and votes and heard five public comments during the meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on January 14, 2014: * Kay * Scutchfield * Gorton * Ford * Akers * Beard * Myers * Clarke * Lane Lawless was absent from the meeting. No attendees arrived late. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took the following actions during the meeting [timestamp: 0:06:03]: **Approval of the November 5, 2013 Committee Summary** Motion by Myers, seconded by Lane. Passed by voice vote. **Removal of Group Health Insurance Requirement from Qualified Adult Benefits** Motion by Gorton, seconded by Akers. Passed by voice vote. **Insertion of Unmarried Status Requirement for Qualified Adults** Motion by Myers, seconded by Gorton. Passed by roll call vote with 8 ayes and 1 nay. - Voted in favor: Kay, Scutchfield, Gorton, Ford, Akers, Beard, Myers, Lane - Voted against: Clarke **Recommendation for Approval of Qualified Adult Benefits as Amended** Motion by Gorton, seconded by Akers. Passed by voice vote. **Authorization of Audit on Employee Dependants** Motion by Gorton, seconded by Akers. Passed by voice vote. **Removal of Qualified Adult Benefits from General Government Referral List** Motion by Gorton, seconded by Clark. Passed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several financial matters related to employee benefits and playground safety infrastructure. **Employee Dependent Audit** An appropriation of $19,000 to $30,000 was approved for the cost of an audit for employee dependants to be conducted by Benefit Insurance Marketing (BIM). **Playground Safety Surfacing** The meeting discussed playground safety surface options and associated costs: * **Poured-in-place surfacing installation**: A projected contract cost of $2.9 million to install poured-in-place surfacing on all playgrounds * **Engineered wood fiber safety surface**: An annual purchase cost of $45,000 for the engineered wood fiber safety surface option * **Poured-in-place surfacing amortized cost**: An annual purchase cost of $400,000 for poured-in-place surfacing, amortized over a 7-year life span These figures represent the comparative costs of two different playground safety surface approaches under consideration. ## Public Comment Several council members raised questions and suggestions regarding park improvements and planning during the meeting. Vice Mayor Gorton inquired about the definition of "barrier-free" playgrounds and whether the term primarily refers to poured-in-place surfacing [timestamp: 0:36:29]. He also asked about the status of a $40,000 budget allocation designated for Castlewood Playground. Councilmember Clark addressed the relationship between hard access surfaces and soft safety surfaces at playgrounds [timestamp: 0:42:24]. He questioned whether neighborhood associations could play a role in assisting with installation efforts. Councilmember Scutchfield suggested exploring grant opportunities and potential collaboration with neighborhood associations to support park improvements and secure additional funding [timestamp: 0:46:21]. Vice Mayor Gorton expressed a desire for a centralized, transparent capital projects master plan for parks similar to the existing sewer grid [timestamp: 0:49:07]. He indicated this approach would improve transparency and help build public support for park initiatives. Councilmember Myers proposed using motion sensor cameras to collect data on park usage patterns, particularly for tennis courts [timestamp: 0:53:56]. He suggested that hard usage data would help inform prioritization decisions and guide resource allocation for park improvements. ## Contested Items The meeting included two contentious votes regarding the eligibility criteria for qualified adults. **Qualified Adult Benefits and Group Health Insurance Requirement** A significant disagreement emerged over whether qualified adults should be required to not have group health insurance. Some members argued that this requirement was inequitable. The body held a vote on removing this clause, which passed 8-1, indicating broad support for eliminating the group health insurance restriction from the qualified adult benefits eligibility criteria. **Marital Status Requirement for Qualified Adults** A second contested item concerned whether qualified adults must be unmarried. A motion to impose this marital status requirement was put to a vote and passed 8-1. Clarke voted against this motion, representing the sole dissenting vote and reflecting a clear division on the issue. The outcome established that qualified adults would be required to be unmarried under the eligibility criteria. ## November 5, 2013 Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary from the November 5, 2013 meeting. [timestamp: 00:06:03] **Outcome** The committee approved the summary without dissent. No corrections or amendments were offered by committee members. ## Move Human Resources - Links/Gorton [timestamp: 06:03] The committee discussed the possibility of elevating the Human Resources division to a standalone department. Key participants in this discussion included Clark, Gorton, Ford, Beard, and Myers. The committee considered the feasibility and structural implications of separating Human Resources from its current organizational placement. Rather than reaching a final decision, the committee determined that further analysis was needed before proceeding. The Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) was tasked with assessing the feasibility of this proposed change and developing recommendations on how such a department restructuring would be organized and implemented. A report on these findings was expected to be presented at the next committee meeting. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, allowing time for the CAO to conduct the necessary evaluation and provide the committee with detailed information to inform future deliberations on this matter. ## Barrier Free Parks - Links/Gorton [timestamp: 23:59] The Parks Department presented on the progress of barrier-free playgrounds during this agenda item. The presentation covered the use of poured-in-place surfacing, maintenance practices, and capital improvement plans for making parks more accessible. Key speakers in the discussion included Coopreiter, Gorton, Clark, Scutchfield, and Myers. The committee engaged in discussion regarding several aspects of the barrier-free parks initiative, including funding mechanisms, the phasing approach for improvements, and the need for a comprehensive master plan to guide future development. The outcome of this agenda item was that it was deferred, indicating the committee did not reach a final decision and chose to postpone further action on this matter for consideration at a future meeting. ## Items Referred The committee reviewed a list of referred items during this portion of the meeting [timestamp: 00:55:02]. Key speakers included Gorton, Clark, Myers, and Scutchfield. The committee decided to retain several items on the agenda for future discussion: * Restructuring of the Division of Budgeting * Vacant positions in Parks * Enterprise programs * Standardized cell phone procurement process The outcome of this review was to defer these items, keeping them active for continued consideration rather than resolving them at this meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the November 5, 2013 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the 'does not have any group health insurance' requirement from Qualified Adult Benefits - **Motion** — passed (8-1): Motion to insert language requiring the qualified adult to be unmarried - **Motion** — passed: Motion to recommend approval of Qualified Adult Benefits as amended - **Motion** — passed: Motion to authorize the audit on employee dependants - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Qualified Adult Benefits item from the General Government referral list --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Good morning, everybody. It's my job as the chair of the General Government Committee, which is the first committee to meet since the break, to welcome everybody back if you've been away. I hope everybody had a restful time, and everybody's ready to resume our good work. So this is the January meeting of the General Government Committee, and the first item on the agenda is the committee summary. Are there any corrections for the summary? Second. I have a motion and a second for approval. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Next item on the agenda is the move of human resources, which came from the links and has Vice Mayor Gorton's name attached to it. Vice Mayor, do you wish to say something about this? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, the only thing I'd like to say is that I think that the issue which Councilmember Clark has taken up now is to establish a Department of Human Resources, and I'm glad that we're talking about this. Thank you. Okay. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. Interesting enough, at a committee meeting some time ago, I made the innocent comment or question, why is human resources not a department? And everybody looked at me kind of strange. And I think it was Commissioner Graham that was at the podium at the time, and she looked at me strange too and shrugged her shoulders and said, I don't know. And I think that's fairly accurate. And so I've been thinking about it ever since then. And so basically my letter to the committee pretty well explains my thoughts, but let me touch some highlights if I could. My feeling is, and these are personal feelings, I think the first thing I should say is that human resources doesn't belong in law. I think I can make that statement and be serious about it. But I can also say to you that I don't believe it belongs under any other department. I don't see human resources as a subgroup. Human resources cuts across every other department and division in government. And as a department, it seems like to me, human resources would have a great deal more credibility as part of this government. It certainly is not in any way a personnel issue in terms of Commissioner Graham or John Maxwell or anybody else. This is about the structure of the government. And so I think, as the letter indicates, I think the next step is to ask CAO Hamilton if she would look into this and simply come up with an assessment of how it would work and what it would take to make that change. And so if CEO Hamilton could make some comments at this point and let us know how she feels about this and if this would be acceptable to proceed in that way. If it's the Council's wishes, we would be glad to do that. And we have talked about this just internally. And what I would intend to give you all back, if it would be suitable, is a structure, a cost, just what a department would look like. Would it include more than human resources itself? An implementation thing, just a real good organizational plan. And I think we could do that by the next committee date. that would let you see some things before we really get deep into this budget and would let you sort of review or send us back and say, well, have you ever thought of this or have you ever thought of that? And I think we would have some time to work on it. So I think I could get something to you by the next committee meeting that would give you a lot of information for you to sort of react to. and we'll be glad to. Yes, thank you, Sally, and I appreciate that, and that would be basically my recommendation. It's not a matter of a motion or a vote, but just if it's the committee's will to ask the CAO to do that, I would recommend that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. CAO, may I ask a question? Yes, sir. I'll preface it by saying I don't mean to put you on the spot, but maybe I do. I guess my question is whether on the face of it this seems like something, and I understand Council Member Clark's interest and concern in this, but I'm curious just on the face of it when you get that recommendation, is that something that you think really deserves attention at this time? I guess I asked the question because I don't want to have you do, you know, however much work is entailed if really your thinking is it's best off kind of leaving it where it is and this is just an exercise. I'll answer the question very honestly. I had the same reaction sort of when Council Member Clark started this. When he first mentioned this, I sort of had the same reaction that Commissioner Graham did. I thought, you know, why do we want to do that? I've thought about that more since this was mentioned, and I've discussed it internally, and I have also talked to Council Member Clark about it. I think I need to show you all something. it's not going to take that much that much I have a personal thing about this I feel that the commissioner we have and I'm just going to now say what I feel we have one of the best commissioners of law that we can have I worked with Janet Graham in the AG's office she is an excellent attorney that one that the AG's office would take back in a moment's notice I want her to practice law we've got a wrong fit somewhere here. And I don't know what the answer is to it, but she needs to be doing what she is so good at, and that is law. So I would like to give you all some options. Thank you. That's very helpful. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to add one more thing as we move along with this, and I'm very supportive, Council Member Clark, of at least moving far enough along to discuss this and to seeing what the CAO might bring us. I've thought a lot about this, and to me, human resources is very much like our new CIO's shop, if you will. Human resources cuts across every division in government. It's not one focus on one particular area, such as division of parks or traffic engineering or streets and roads. It cuts across everything and affects everyone. And for that reason, I think it's really important that we do take a look at what a structure might look like and to talk about how this might work as a new department, because it is very different. And as far as I can remember, and maybe other people who were before me, it's always been a division within something else. but it will be helpful to see how it could look as its own stand-alone department and how it could maybe even better serve across all of government, which it does serve all of government. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Beard. I'm sorry. Council Member Clark. Well, let me get Council Member Beard first, if that's okay. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. This has been kind of a pet peeve of mine, too. I never understood why it was structured the way it is structured presently. I don't think there's any business of any significant size in Lexington or the state of Kentucky or maybe the whole United States that does not have a stand-alone entity that is doing whatever it may be doing, but in relationship to the human resources function. And it has so many tentacles in how it works within government. But I was wondering if, while we're checking into this a little bit, if we could talk to some other companies here in Lexington and see how they're doing things. There's no reflection, again, on the law department. I don't want to make that clear, but it's just that it needs autonomy for one thing. And we're starting to see definitely things going in the right direction as far as human resources are concerned. And there have been times when that hasn't been the case. So I can talk both sides. If anybody was interested, I could talk both sides of the issue. but I really think that we ought to do this, but I do think that we ought to do our due diligence in relationship to what other people are doing, especially in Lexington. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I see nobody else signed up at this point, so unless there is further comment or objection, I'm sorry, came on late. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to speak. I want to echo my support for studying this issue a little bit further. I think, from what I understand, Council Member Clark and committee, is that our attempt here is to promote greater efficiency and clarity and autonomy for the existing staff up in HR. I would hope, and I do assume, and I think this is correct, that we're not speaking to expand this section of government. We're not speaking at this point to add more folks or to bloat government, so to speak. But we're just trying to find the proper organizational structure for HR. I have a question, if somebody can help me, in regards to the current outfit right now. HR I will suspect that the division of HR has certain sections that make up the division and if somebody could if Mr. Maxwell could just very briefly describe those sections as they exist now. The division is currently made up of three sections. One is benefits. It's focused primarily on the benefits area. The second one, which is the largest, is our talent acquisition area. And then the third one is employee relations and training. Those are the three primary sections that we have that we kind of developed over the last year to try to, for purposes of efficiency. I'm going to say, just because you brought this up, and I think it's worth saying, there is another area that needs to be looked at that we don't have, and that's a class compensation area relative to compensation. And, you know, we have had some, and I mentioned this in the LINCS committee meeting, and we have had from our consultants a recommendation to have a class compensation section for purposes of administering our compensation plan. Thank you, Mr. Maxwell. Mr. Chairman, the only other question I would raise to the committee, and I definitely have confidence that CAO Hamilton is going to work closely with the committee, but the question is that ultimately, in regards to reorganization, it's the council's role to reorganize. And, of course, we would try our very best to work as closely with the administration as we can, but is that correct? that is ultimately the council's role to reorganize government. I see heads nodding in many places. I think that's correct. I look forward to the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Maxwell, could you come up with just a second? Could you maybe provide to the committee and maybe the full council So if you've got something that gives us an overview of those three sections and what all is under their purview, and if you could, which one of those sections addresses things like employee grievances? That would be the employee relations section and training. Okay. That's the section. Is that the same section that would do different types of policies like your exit interview policy and those kinds of things? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Could you, without too much work going into it, maybe a one-pager with those three sections and what's underneath those? Sure. And then as you see this moving forward, you talked about that maybe fourth section. What else do you think needs to be there? Okay. And what do you think that these three or four sections need to be encompassing? Sure. I'd be glad to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, then as I started to say, if there's no objection, we'll ask the CAO to bring back next month some options. We'll get a description of the present status, and we'll continue this conversation. Keep it on the agenda. Thank you very much. And thank you, Vice Mayor Gordon and Council Member Clark for bringing this forward. The next item on the agenda is barrier-free parks. Again, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Just by way of introduction, I became interested in this issue a few years ago after having visited several military facilities. The military facilities are way out in front on barrier-free parks. if you've ever been to Fort Campbell they have a very large barrier free park and of course they're looking at them from sort of an opposite perspective because they have lots of members who are in wheelchairs and they need to get on the playgrounds with the children and so I've seen several around the country And after I had brought this up to Mr. Hancock, Jerry Hancock, it just so happened that Leadership Lexington class at the time was interested in working on a barrier-free playground. And so we went out and looked at Castlewood, which already had some therapeutic classes. and the thinking was that at that time we would move toward converting Castlewood Park's playground into a barrier-free playground. So that's just kind of an introduction. I think some of you have probably seen these across the country, and they are fantastic for both wheelchair-bound parents or children who have difficulty with regular playgrounds. So that's really my opening comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And there's information in the packet, and Chris, I presume you're here to speak on barrier-free playgrounds, yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My name is Chris Coopreiter. I'm Deputy Director of Parks. And as Linda said, I appreciate the opportunity to brief you about our barrier-free playground movement and our playground program. I think when we talk about barrier-free, we need to define a couple movements that are in the playground industry today. And again, to help us understand, I want to talk about ADA first and foremost. ADA is a defined standard, and this is a key thing as we go through the barrier-free. and the next concept, which is inclusive playgrounds. ADA is a defined standard from the Department of Justice, and actually it was implemented in March of 2012. We were ahead of the game because we started in our 2006 Parks Playground Parity Program to implement ADA components and playgrounds, so we were completely compliant since 2006 with ADA. Barrier-Free, which is also known as accessible-free playgrounds, playgrounds have no defined standards but it's generally stated as a play site that can be used by any child of any ability to truly play in other words there's no barriers to play inclusive playgrounds i know i wanted to bring up inclusive playgrounds because it's another movement that we are incorporating in our playground design and it's a design concept that ensures that children of any ability can play together, not just alongside each other. In 2006, like I said previously, we began our current playground program that seeks to provide a quality play experience across our community and to institute ADA-compliant play sites. As mentioned before, we were ahead of the Department of Justice 2012 mandate. While there are no defined standards for barrier-free playgrounds, most advocates cite the ease movement into and across the play surface as the most common obstacle to allow unobstructed play. Some advocates will say playgrounds with engineered wood safety surfacing. Out in the field we refer to that as playground mulch, but it's truly engineered, and I won't go into the details of it, as being barrier-free if it's maintained well. And the difference between the two camps of poured in place surfacing for barrier-free considerations and the playground wood fiber surfacing comes down to basically two elements, ease of movement through the playground because when we add new mulch into a playground, it can be more difficult than the poured in place playground. And also in terms of maintenance, we got to keep the mulch play surface level with our retaining curb so there's no lip there to enter into the playground. In 2011, partly in response to Linda's question of movement, but also to the Kentucky Parks and Recreation Society, we did an audit in all of our 63 playground sites to identify what sites are considered barrier-free. And we did use the tougher standard that the playground had to have ported in place surfacing. From our 2011 audit, we found three sites, Cardinal Run, Southland Pool, and one of the playgrounds at Mary Todd that met the requirements that we felt to be considered barrier-free. They had an ADA path of travel, and as previously mentioned, they had the port-and-place safety surfacing. We also changed our maintenance standards on playgrounds with the wood fiber safety surface so the surface would knit together and create a firmer surface for mobility impaired individuals in addition to that we instituted ramps going into our playground sites so if the playground mulch is not level with the curb it's not such an issue for mobility impaired individuals to enter there's a ramp into the playground site to install just to you an idea of the size of our playgrounds to install pour in place on all existing playgrounds it's projected cost 2.9 million million so certainly it's something we want to achieve but it's it's a big undertaking for comparison purposes engineered wood fiber safety surface costs almost $45,000 annually. That includes labor. Port and place generally lasts seven to ten years. So we use this port and place on all of our playground sites, amortized over a seven-year life, and it costs around $400,000 annually. So that's a difference of about $355,000. So obviously we have a financial hurdle to overcome to make all of our playgrounds barrier-free. In the past two years, we did receive $80,000 towards barrier-free playgrounds. And what we looked at was Cardinal Run. Since it was already barrier-free, it was in a state that needed repairs. So we did repairs to Cardinal Run, as mentioned, to maintain the barrier-free status. We also looked at Masterson Station playgrounds and looked at the center section, which you're looking at here. Now, this is with kids in it. So today, if you looked at the poured-in-place surfacing, it would be snow, not kids, and I thought kids were more interesting. But that center section you're looking at today is now poured-in-place surfacing. And what we're looking at at Castlewood is to phase it in. That playground was designed in a pie shape to phase in in slices of a pie, if you will. So likely to pursue poured-in-place surfacing there, we'll follow the same concept to put it in slices like a pie. as a council member Gordon said we are currently in the process of installing the first of two phases at Castlewood Playground Castlewood Playground that playground site if you've ever been there has not been fully built out in terms of equipment and that's one aspect that we're talking to about leadership Lexington's fully build it out and bring in poured in place surfacing and what we're looking to do is do poured in place surfacing underneath the existing climbing equipment and to alter slightly the swing location and do port in place there to finish off the phase we're looking at adding some equipment and to do the third and final phase of port in place we are asking for some additional funds in the upcoming budget year related as I mentioned about barrier free but not port in place in the past five years we have installed over 9,000 yards of this engineered wood surfacing on playgrounds and to put it in a perspective we we would like to have an average about 2,000 yards a year obviously we went through a recession so we're about a thousand yards behind behind the game in terms of catch-up and this coming year we put in some funding to hopefully more than enough funding to catch us up on our fiber wood fiber playground surfacing and then from there on out I think we'll be on top of the game in the near term what we're looking to do is well first I want to describe our capital improvement program for playgrounds just briefly what we do is we look at playgrounds basically on a 15 year cycle for replacement and what I mean by that is we look at it we don't automatically replace it we have a a certified playground inspector that provides safety audits twice per year from our maintenance section. In addition to that, we have district park supervisors that perform playground inspections, and there's a difference between inspections and audits. Audits has a certified individual from a national organization that's been trained to go through and make sure the playground is 100% safe. The inspection is by district supervisors that primarily look for broken equipment, things on the playground weeds, stuff like that that needs to be cleaned up. But this information from our maintenance folks is used with our planning and design folks along with input from various community sources to make the recommendations for our capital improvement program. So the purpose of saying that, we used that background information to recommend for this upcoming fiscal year that we want to replace Veterans Park Playground and Jacobson Park Playground. Veterans Park Playground is actually the last playground that we identified in 2006 for the Parks Parity Program. So that would complete that initial phase that started several years ago. Jacobson Park Playground is a leathers playground. If you've been out there before, it's all wood. It was built in approximately 1992. Well used, well loved, but it's dated. In fact, at times we have difficulty replacing the wood components, and we have to eliminate sections of that playground if we cannot find the replacement parts or make them. So we're recommending Veterans and Jacobson Park. In addition to that, we want to continue with phasing in the board in place, surfacing at Masterson Station Playground and at Castlewood Playground. on our longer term plans we're looking at replacing playgrounds or asking for a replacement funds for replacement in the fiscal year 16 budget at shellato park woodland park and cardinal valley we want to continue and i say continue actually started several years ago if you think of shellato and jacobston as a destination playground because they draw children from across the community, but we want to use that concept and institute it and call it a destination playground. And what we're looking at, destination playgrounds would have a larger service area, more use, and rank a higher priority in terms of port-and-place servicing. In the fiscal year 16 cycle, what we're looking at is to consider Shilto a destination playground and Woodland Park a destination playground. Cardinal Valley would be considered a community park and lower on the priority scales. Ultimately, if we could do it all, likely we'd want to do Cardinal Valley with Port-in-Place, but more than likely it'd stay with a wood fiber safety surface. Besides our destination playgrounds, and actually a more important consideration, which we mentioned earlier about a higher priority, are playground sites that have therapeutic recreation programs at it. As previously mentioned, we have those therapeutic programs at Castlewood and also at Woodland. And Woodland being a destination playground would have twice as much priority being a destination playground and a site for therapeutic recreation. So I just wanted to close with saying we were ahead of the 2012 ADA mandate, and we have incorporated many concepts of barrier-free in our playgrounds, even if it has a mulch safety surfacing, and we have included concepts of inclusion. And one of the newest pieces of equipment, it's not yet installed but on order, is a swing glider, and it's going in up at Masterland Station Playground, and the idea is that people, perhaps in wheelchairs or whatever the mobility device is, can go into the slider along with children with no handicap whatsoever and experience the same movement. So we're incorporating inclusive play design as well. So in closing, what we're looking to do with our playground program, including the barrier-free playground program, is moving towards a CIP program where kids can come and truly play. With that, are there any questions? I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Yes, there are. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chris, I want to first be sure I understand some of the definitions. When you refer to the barrier-free, does that mainly refer to the port-in-place surface? And then does the ADA standard refer to the equipment? ADA standard refers to the whole playground site, and it does include wood surfacing. It's considered ADA compliant. Now, some camps, and because there's no standards, it's opinion at this point, but some camps would say that the wood surface is difficult to transverse, to walk through, to motor through, to push wheelchairs through. And that is, in my opinion, a true statement, especially when we add new material to the playground. What we've done from a maintenance aspect to minimize that, again, it's not as easy to transverse as poured in place. We grant you that. We agree with that. But what we've done is we have stopped the practice of tilling or fluffing the playgrounds. We've allowed it to knit together, and that creates a harder surface that the wheelchairs or other devices can go across. Okay. In addition to that, on a design point, we put the ramps in, as I previously mentioned. Okay. And so the equipment, like the swings with the high backs and the glider that you mentioned, are those ADA standards or are those barrier-free standards, or is it kind of mixed together? That's mixed together. The ADA standards in terms of equipment has a sliding scale, and basically what ADA says to us is that we have to have X number, depending on the number of features. You have X number that are ground accessible, panels on the ground or units on the ground, or that we provide a transfer platform, and this is above and beyond for ADA, or a ramp. Now, a ramp where a wheelchair can access elevated components, that's actually a barrier-free concept. Okay. But ADA, at a minimal, only requires a transfer platform. Okay. Now, I heard you say that you're requesting several new monies in the budget. Right. Jacobson Park, Veterans Park, the wood safety surfacing, the retrofitting of some, and the port in place. but I wanted to go back and ask you about the monies that are currently in the budget and the status of those projects. I wasn't quite sure. I think you said that you're in the first of two phases at Castlewood for Port and Place Surface. Is that correct? Castlewood is, we divide it up in three phases, and we feel we have enough funding to do the first two of the three phases. And we feel we have that funding existing. from the previous allotments towards the barrier-free movement. To complete it, a value or a concept you have to consider when you do port-in-place surfacing is the 7-10 year life. Because we would hate to put it into a playground that we have the idea of moving equipment or adding equipment to it to cut up that surfacing, create seams, and then becomes a maintenance issue. So we want to do it in large segments. Over at Castlewood, we can move a swing set with existing funding and get those first two sections done. The third section, because that playground was never fully built out, we need to add some equipment to. So that's part of an upcoming budget request. Okay, so if you look in our packet on page 7 at the very bottom, it talks about the $40,000 that was approved in this budget. or, I mean, yes, in this budget, which of the, you've installed the port in place at Masterson, correct? The Cardinal Run repairs is finished? Is that complete? Yes. Okay. And the port in place at Castlewood, two phases are about to be complete or complete? Are in process. They're not complete. Okay, when you get that done, is that $40,000 spent? We actually have a balance of a little over $60,000, and that balance will be spent in the next two phases of Castlewood, which will take the complete Castlewood's first two of the three phases. And tell me again what the proposed date of finishing is. Our goal is to have it completed before camp starts this summer. Okay. That's our goal. Okay. I'm just trying to put together your request for the next budget with what you have in this budget and the status of it. Right. Okay. So, okay. And my final question, I just ran out of time, but if you could speak to a master plan update, It sounds like you're updating it on the fly and being familiar with the parks master plan. I wondered if we're going to do a master plan update or what the status is. A master plan update overall or in terms of playgrounds? Yes, overall. I'm prepared to talk about the CIP master plan in terms of the playground element. Okay, that's okay. That's maybe a question for another day, and I know it's a lot of money, but that's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. And, Chris, thank you very much. I've learned a lot about playgrounds that I simply didn't know, and I appreciate that. It's obviously very important to our community and the kind of opportunities we provide our citizens, small and large. I have three questions. And in preparing a surface for a hard surface for access, is there a dichotomy between the hard surface for access and the soft surface that would be in place for safety? In terms of maintenance, there is an economy, there's a savings, and that's actually what we're looking to do. and it will help with the barrier-free access at Castlewood. The playground site is large enough, and when you look at a playground, there's two zones, if you will, within the actual curb of the playground site. One zone is the fall zone, and that has to be fall attenuation material. The other areas, which we include a lot, is for mobility or ease of use, or it just makes sense in terms of scale of the economy. Over at Castlewood, we are looking at putting in a sidewalk to define, And that's one of the challenges when we phase in port-in-place surfacing is how would we define that section bearing in mind where the fall zones lie. So there is an economy to add sidewalks within playgrounds that are not within fall zones. Yes. Okay, good. That obviously is recognized by you folks. The other question, one other question was, have there been attempts to use neighborhood associations and cooperation and citizen labor to help us install some of the playground surfaces and facilities? We have used recently, we have attempted to use neighborhood associations in terms of moving the playground safety surfacing, the mulch into the playground with limited success. And the primary thing, primarily the issue is the equipment, to have the equipment on site when the people are there and to make it work efficiently. And it's also typically we install it at the beginning of a season, which is a timing issue. It's a very busy time for us, and our weekends are tight with activities. Yeah. So so we have limited success using neighborhoods, but we have tried for maintenance reasons. I can understand that one. One other quick question. If you could if you could describe and you may have done it and I just didn't catch it. But if you could describe it very, very quick, very shortly, the three classifications of playgrounds, designation, community and neighborhood. Sure. Sure. A neighborhood playground has a smaller service area. It's really a walk to playground. In our future budget request, we throw in the average number of $60,000 for equipment and the play site. Again, it's just a small service area. Community playgrounds, it's a larger park. It's a park that people may drive to. There's typically a lot of neighborhoods that come to it. A good example, and maybe that's the best way to talk about it, is with a good example is Cardinal Valley Playground. A lot of neighborhoods come to that playground. So that's an example of a community playground. A destination playground, and Masterson's our newest destination playground. We currently only have three, which is Shillitoe, Jacobson, and Masterson. It's a larger area, and what we're hoping to move forward into is to design destination playgrounds throughout the community where it's about a 10-minute drive for individuals to come. Families will come spend the day. There's more opportunity to interact with other families. Destination playground, as a budget holder, we're putting $300,000 in. Community playgrounds, as a budget holder, we're putting $150,000 in. Thank you, Chris. That's very helpful, and I appreciate all the work that you're all doing to make this possible. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I'm taking a look at it. Obviously, this is great that we're moving forward because any time we can be more inclusive to a larger population, that's good. And I think the schools have done a lot of this. We can model some of the playgrounds that they've done, take a look at what's worked for them. In taking a look, though, at this, and I'm taking a look at the other things that we currently have pending in general government, trying to bring together several of the things that we want to work on. Obviously, grants, trying to use different grants. And I know I've talked to Commissioner Reed about trying to develop more grant opportunities. And I would think that those opportunities could be available, especially with trying to convert some of the parks over. I'm sorry. Yes, you're correct. We do look into grants. In fact, our most recent grant, which wasn't for a playground but Land and Water Conservation Fund, which we've tried for the past four years and unfortunately have not been successful in, a couple years ago was intended for a nature-based playground up at Raven Run. The other grant, which we tried for last year, was a crumb rubber grant. And the crumb rubber grant, there's, again, different communities that think we can just add that in and use it as a safety surface. We in our division, we have concerns because of various factors. One is the maintenance of getting kicked out and then getting picked up by mowers or other equipment and becoming a projectile. However, we feel we could and we're willing to experiment. We just weren't successful last year in getting the grant. We feel we could use that material as an underlayment for port in place, and that would help reduce the cost. It's not cost-free, per se, but it does help reduce the cost. Well, and along with the grants, I think we've talked about the underwriting and sponsoring of our parks, working with, as Council Member Clark mentioned, working with neighborhood associations, because it only helps the neighborhoods if we have good parks nearby. But working both with the grants and the underwriting to try to come to a win-win and obviously work with all of those together. So I hope that we can move forward with all of that, and I appreciate all the work you've done. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you. Just one more itty-bitty comment, and thank you very much. for the information you've brought us. And I realize that what I'm going to say isn't why you're here today and that parks is in flux because we are looking for a new director. But I'm hoping that in the future, parks can become like sanitary sewers. And what I mean by that is, you know, the council gets this wonderful grid of sewer projects that says, here's the project, here's the amount of money it takes, here is the status. Is it in bid? Is it in construction? Is it doing punch list? And I'm hopeful, and I'm really saying this for the CAO and the commissioner, I don't think we've ever really had this in parks. And it is also linked to money, like Council Member Scutchfield said, but it would be a place, too, where these playgrounds would plug in. And we would have an overall master plan of our capital projects moving forward. And that's my dream. I don't think we'll see it by December, but I think that it's something we should work toward because people are much more likely to financially support something when they can see what the plan forward is. So I do appreciate your work on this and look forward to hearing more. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up. I just have a question and then maybe a comment. On the designation of the three different kinds of parks, I presume in part that's used because you make decisions about allocation of resources based on what you assume is the usage and the scope of those parks. Is that correct? Correct, yes. And do you have data that would indicate that either there's more usage of the, I mean, going up the ladder, most uses at destination, less usage at the community parks, and less usage at neighborhood parks. And do you have any data at all about, let's say, for the destination parks, whether they really draw nonetheless from their own geographic area or whether they really do draw from across the community? The data we have is purely observation from our maintenance people and our planning and design people that are out in the field on a regular basis or maintenance every day. So we have personally experienced and had conversations with individuals that come to the playground and ask and talk to them. So we do have the data, but it's not hard data across the board for every playground. It's observed data. Okay, and again, I would make an assumption that getting that hard data would be fairly expensive. It would be hard to get. Yes, and actually we asked ourselves that question with another parks amenity, tennis courts, how frequently are they used and how to capture them. And we attempted using motion detector cameras, first time ever this year, to capture usage of tennis courts. So perhaps we could do that as well. But it's difficult to grab hard data, but we feel confident in the data we have because it comes from many firsthand conversations between people in the field and our maintenance people. Okay. So I guess I would encourage you to think about ways that some of that, even though it's anecdotal, some of that data can be accumulated not to add to people's responsibilities, but while they are doing whatever they're doing, it may be possible for them to capture more of that information. I think that would be helpful. And I would second the Vice Mayor's comment about how useful it would be for Council to see all of the expenditures laid out in a way that is a little easier to grasp and that was tied to the present master plan. And I see somebody else would like to speak. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I agree with both of those comments on the master plan and hope that we can get to the point where we are redoing our master plan. If you look at the last couple of years, whenever the council has money that it can determine how it's going to be spent, probably 80%, 90% of it is going towards parks. So we all have things we want to have done in our parks, and so it would be great to have that plan. And also, you just spoke about a motion sensor camera. Which park is that in? It's not an installed one. It's a portable one. And we just used it to try to track data or track usage of tennis courts. Okay. And which park is it? You do all the parts with tennis courts? No, we just picked out a couple parts to try to understand the usage to help us in prioritization of maintenance. Okay. So it's not permanently installed is what I'm trying to say. Oh, no, you're okay. I like what you're doing. And we were trying to get a motion-censored camera put in one of our parks, I think, as you know. And so I guess we'll wait and talk more about that and see how it's working for you and that kind of thing. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I see no one else signed up. Thank you for this presentation. and I'm assuming on this topic that we'll basically now move it into the budget cycle and that we don't need to have this come back to this committee unless anybody sees it differently. Okay, thank you very much. All right, thank you. Okay, last item on the agenda is the items referred. It is actually an extensive list, partly because of the referrals from the links. so it may take a minute or two but I'd like to go through them item by item and see if and if they need to stay on and if so when they need to be scheduled starting at the top it's councilmember Myers bluegrass add it's my understanding that the audit is done and it's just a matter of them wrapping it up and then presenting the findings and so I'd like to keep this in the committee until we find out what those findings are. Okay, so keep it in, not schedule it at this time. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Procedure for underwriting or sponsoring, it seems to me that's been an item that we've had every month for many months, but it's coming forward. It's being worked on, and it's coming forward. I think Commissioner can speak to it. I think the question is, yeah, if we want to schedule it, when? I believe that the next step is that there was a review that the committee wanted by the Parks Advisory Board as to the work and their input and comments. That will be, there's a Parks Advisory Board meeting January 22nd, so we can come back to you post that meeting. Am I wrong? I think, Mr. Chair, I apologize for interrupting. That's okay. Because this was an issue I was very interested in, I've been working with the CAO's office on it, and I believe after some discussions today it's going to come to the February Parks Board because the January agenda is packed. Okay. So that's time. We have several items for February and March. I believe that we've referred and we can we can come in February with some of the items we can come in March and finalize that item It sounds like it would be more useful to have it in March after the Advisory Board has had a chance to look at that. I think the Advisory Board has to speak to the Okay, so let's put it on the agenda for March that suits Thank you Human resources we know is coming back next month. Domestic partner benefits, I believe we can remove. It's been removed by motion in November. It's been removed? In the minutes, it reflects that we removed it by motion in November. I see. So that should not have been on. Thank you. Building security. That I believe was pending, but I don't know what the status is. Commissioner? So we can discuss that in February. There's some steps that we're going to be taking initially here in the next two or three weeks, and I'm happy to give you an update in February on that. Okay. Thank you. We'll schedule that. Are we going to find out after that? The grant review process? I think we've spoken with Commissioner. I think we're on a holding pattern right now with hiring a new parks person. and he is taking a look at it. So I'd like to keep that on. Keep it on but not scheduled at this time. Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. It's restructuring to remove. Now these are all, I believe, links referrals. And I'm not sure. I'll start with you, Vice Mayor, and if you know who, if there's someone else who needs to speak to it, we'll shift to them. So first, the restructuring to remove the Division of Budgeting from the Department of Finance. All of these that came from LINCS would be better addressed, I think, by the LINCS chairs. I'm not sure at this point who all the LINCS chairs were. This restructuring one, though, I know we discussed moving budgeting out from under finance as it was some time ago. So, and... Is there anybody who was on that link who can speak to that? I mean, the issue, as I recall, the issue was whether it is the correct structure to have the commissioner of finance, I'm not picking on the commissioner, but to have the budgeting function under the department that actually does the finance. They used to be separate. Okay. So I guess my question then for the committee, is this a live issue and do we need to keep it on? And if so, does it need to be scheduled? So I see a couple heads nodding yes. and I don't see any heads nodding in any other direction. So let's leave it on, and I guess my inclination would be to have myself and our staff talk with the division about when we might get some information about that and some alternatives, if that makes sense, but not to schedule it at this point. Any objections? Okay. the vacant positions on parks, maintenance, and programming. Is that still a live issue? These are all new live issues. And the issue there, if I recall from the link, and Council Member Clark, I might ask for your help. The link wanted to know if there were vacancies in parks that are impacting the ability to accomplish the mission in terms of maintenance programming, et cetera. Is that what you recall? That's correct, Vice Mayor. And I would add that there have been some problems discussed since then, including the problems of hiring and the difficulties of hiring and position classifications and so forth. And I think until we have a new commissioner, a new department, new division director in place, that's probably a moot point. But I think it probably needs to stay in the committee until we do have that position filled. Okay, so leave it on our list but not schedule it correct at this point. That would be my recommendation. And the next item, which is also in Parks and Rec, regarding enterprise programs, is that similarly, should we hold it until we have new leadership, or is that information that we could get in the interim? This issue, if I recall, has to do with what are the enterprise programs, how much money do they bring in, and where does the money go? And are there new opportunities? Are there new opportunities? So that's information that we could ask for now. Yes. And in terms of scheduling it, I'm looking at the commissioner. Is it reasonable to put that on the next month's agenda or give you a couple months? Strong preference? Tell me again what it's about. If I recall, the LINC wanted to know when they reported out, what are the enterprise programs? How much money are they bringing in and where does that money go? It's kind of a simple accounting for the enterprise programs. Can you add in their opportunities? Yes. Okay. We'll put that on. Thank you. We'll put that on February. Thank you. I think we can get that. The status of Barrier Free, I think we're going to take that off our list and presume it's going to be handled in the budget process. Next item, explore sharing of artistic direction, box office, and technical services with the Downtown Arts Center. Sharing with whom? Clark, I think that was going to be on hold. I don't think that's good. Council Member Clark. Yeah, let me address that, Mr. Chair. I think that we have explored that up to a point, but we have a new permanent director of the Lyric Theater. and also we're losing our Jim Clark, of course. And so I think that it's a problem we still need to address, and it's fairly complex. But until we have someone to replace Jim, I think it's something that we need to delay but leave on the list if we could, please. Okay. Okay. So if there's no objection, we'll leave it on the list, not schedule it at this time. And finally, standardized cell phone procurement process. If you don't mind, I'd be happy to talk about this. I've discussed this with Director Slayton, and they're prepared to address this in March, if that suits you folks. Okay, so we'll put that on the agenda for March. Great. Is there anything else that needs to be scheduled? If not, that concludes our business. Thank you all very much, and we stand adjourned. Or I'll take a motion, I guess. Second. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We stand adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.