# General Government Committee - September 9, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 9, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3448 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3448?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-09-09 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 6,550 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 September 9, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., with Kay presiding. The committee addressed six agenda items during the meeting, including approval of the Committee Summary and an update on the Coroner's Office Salary & Classification. Two informational presentations were provided on the Procedure for Underwriting/Sponsoring Parks and the Impact of Vacant Positions in Parks. The committee took three motions and votes during the session and heard six public comments. One agenda item—Parks Foundation – Gen. Services Link—was deferred for future consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 9, 2014: * Kay * Scutchfield * Gorton * Ford * Akers * Lawless * Beard * Myers * Clarke * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Approval of March 4, 2014 Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 0:07:31] The summary for the March 4, 2014 meeting, as amended, was approved. The motion was made by Myers and seconded by Lane. **Ordinance 0130-26: Hazardous Duty Pay for Unclassified Civil Service Employees** [timestamp: 0:09:33] An amendment to Section 22-24 of the Code of Ordinances passed, allowing unclassified civil service employees, including Deputy Coroners, to receive hazardous duty pay. The motion was made by Gorton and seconded by Lane. **Motion to Remove HR Transfer Item** [timestamp: 0:48:19] A motion to remove the item regarding HR transfer from the Department of Law to the CAO office passed. The motion was made by Ford. ## Public Comment Council members posed several questions during the meeting regarding staffing, hiring processes, and departmental operations. Council Member Clark inquired about the vacancy process timeline [timestamp: 0:21:47], asking about the duration between recognizing a vacancy and offering a job. The response indicated that the process typically takes six weeks to two months, with some seasonal variation. Council Member Lane raised concerns about job offer rejections [timestamp: 0:26:48], asking why applicants had rejected entry-level job offers. The response suggested that the salary was perceived as too low despite the formal starting pay being set. Council Member Akers asked whether the Parks Department was ready to discuss reorganizing or reallocating positions [timestamp: 0:28:20]. The response indicated that the matter was still in flux and that it would be better to revisit the topic at a later time. Council Member Beard inquired about the Parks Advisory Board's role in the foundation [timestamp: 0:40:07]. The response indicated strong support for their involvement and input. Council Member Clark also asked about how the foundation's leadership would be appointed and whether paid staff would be needed [timestamp: 0:41:48]. The response confirmed that leadership would come from the board and that paid staff would be necessary. Council Member Ford moved to remove the item about transferring HR from the Department of Law to the CAO office [timestamp: 0:47:48], noting that this action had already been implemented. ## Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary from the March 4, 2014 meeting [timestamp: 00:07:31]. Key speakers Myers and Lane participated in this discussion. A minor amendment was made to page 5 of the meeting summary during the review process. The motion to approve the summary, as amended, passed without dissent from the committee. ## Coroner's Office Salary & Classification – Update [timestamp: 00:08:12] The committee discussed an amendment to the Code of Ordinances regarding compensation for the Coroner's Office. The proposed amendment would allow unclassified civil service employees, including Deputy Coroners, to receive hazardous duty pay. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved Maxwell, Gorton, Lane, and Kay. **Action Taken** The committee approved the amendment and moved it to the council docket for further consideration. ## Procedure for Underwriting/Sponsoring Parks Roger Damon presented two draft policies related to park underwriting and sponsorship procedures [timestamp: 0:10:03]. **Policies Presented:** - Policy #48: Donation/Recognition Guidelines - Policy #49: Naming Policy for Park Lands, Features, and Facilities **Outcome:** Both draft policies were reviewed and accepted for final review by the committee. No further action was required at this time, and the item was handled as informational in nature. ## Impact of Vacant Positions (Parks) Brad Chambers, the new Parks Director, presented an analysis of staffing challenges within the Parks Department [timestamp: 0:14:32]. The presentation focused on the department's 148 full-time positions and examined the current vacancy situation. **Vacancy Rate and Numbers** As of September 1, the Parks Department had 18 vacant positions, representing a vacancy rate of 12–14% across the full-time workforce. **Contributing Factors** Chambers identified several factors contributing to the vacancies: - Seasonal hiring patterns that affect staffing levels throughout the year - Internal promotions that create openings in lower-level positions - Offer rejections from candidates, which Chambers attributed to low salary levels in the department **Committee Response** The committee, including Maxwell, acknowledged the staffing challenges presented. However, the committee determined that no immediate action was necessary at that time. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, with no specific directives or decisions made as a result of the presentation. ## Parks Foundation – Gen. Services Link [timestamp: 00:30:35] Brad Chambers presented an overview of establishing a Parks Foundation and its potential connection to General Services. The presentation covered the benefits, challenges, and procedural steps involved in creating such a foundation. **Key Points Presented:** - Tax advantages available through foundation status - Opportunities for legacy gifts and charitable contributions - Potential for maintenance endowments to support long-term park operations - Importance of strong board leadership for foundation success **Committee Response:** The committee expressed interest in the Parks Foundation concept. However, before proceeding further, members requested that a formal proposal be submitted for their review and consideration. **Outcome:** This agenda item was deferred, pending submission of the formal proposal requested by the committee. ## Items Referred [timestamp: 00:47:48] The committee reviewed a list of referred items during this portion of the meeting. Councilmember Ford moved to remove the HR transfer item from the list. This motion was approved by the committee. No other changes were made to the referred items list beyond the removal of the HR transfer item. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the summary for the March 4, 2014 meeting as amended - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Amendment to Section 22-24 of the Code of Ordinances to allow unclassified civil service employees, including Deputy Coroners, to receive hazardous duty pay - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the item regarding HR transfer from Department of Law to CAO office --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo So Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. I think we'll get started if the council members can take their seats the general government committee September 9, thank you One two three Well, we have a quorum in in the in the well, yes Council member Lane will be right back I think we should get started. The first item on the agenda is the committee summary. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the summary. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next item on the agenda is the coroner's office salary and classification. and I believe that we have a replacement to the ordinances in the packet with a little bit of additional language. I don't know if Mr. Maxwell or Ms. George, one or the other, want to explain what we have in front of us. Good morning, everyone. I apologize for the error in the ordinance that was placed in the packet. At the last General Government Committee meeting, there was a discussion about whether or not the Deputy Coroners met the criteria for the hazardous duty supplement that is included in the Code of Ordinances. And the Division of Human Resources had determined that they do. However, that required an amendment to the Code of Ordinances. So if you look at the handout that was passed out to you this morning in the Section C, we've added some new language that would allow unclassified civil service employees who meet the criteria to receive the supplement, and also to the deputies in the coroner's office. And that's what that language is in Section 2224, subsection C. and I know that you all wanted to see the ordinance before this was reported out at work session. Okay, thank you. Questions, comments from council members? Just a reminder that we had kind of separated the two, the issues of the level of compensation and this particular issue, but people were interested in having this issue move forward. If there's no, nobody signed up to speak, I would entertain a motion to place this on the docket for council. Motion and second to place this on the docket. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the procedure for underwriting slash sponsoring parks facilities. I believe Mr. Damon is here to speak to us about that. Welcome. Thank you. In October of 2012, we were asked by council to draft a new naming policy that would help potential donors understand the investment to recognition ratio. And since then, we have created two draft CAO policies, one for donation and recognition guidelines, and another for naming parklands, features, and facilities with a fair market value over $50,000. dollars. Council has given us several really good recommendations that have greatly improved both of these draft policies. Some of them are changes to maintenance in which we put in a recommendation for an endowment of a minimum of 10 percent, but council can also set aside funds if they wish not to require that endowment. We changed the language for partnerships and adoption programs. We got a lot of really good suggestions on that, especially from the vice mayor. We made some changes to naming within the naming policy. A couple of those changes were increasing the amounts and the percentages and recommending a 10-year agreement. It doesn't require it. but it does recommend it. And we made some changes to the giving level standards by increasing those amounts and changing the language on those standards. And we also made several improvements to the naming approval procedures. There's many other changes that we made thanks to the recommendations that have come to us, but we also, upon recommendation from this body, took it to the Parks Advisory Board three times and got lots of good changes from them as well. And the last time that we took it to them, they approved both drafts without any additional changes. So today we're bringing both drafts back to you to take one last look at them as we move forward. Okay, thank you. And just to kind of remind everybody, the action that would be needed on this, should this committee be favorably inclined? What was the next step? There's no action required. We're just bringing it back to you in case you have further recommendations for us. But it's a CAO policy. Both of them are CAO policies. Okay. Thank you. Council members, questions, comments? Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon and I serve on the Parks Committee, and I know that there was a long – I mean, we discussed it in great detail, trying to make sure that we made it sound right and have the right qualifications in there for the naming policy. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Yeah, I would also like to say thanks for this. This is a good move for us and a well-written document. And if we discover problems in the future, we can always make changes. And I think this is ready to go, and I appreciate all your work on this, Roger. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. I'll just add my comment as well. I think this was a good process, input from everybody involved, a lot of thoughtful work. And thank you for bringing that forward. And now I guess we're good to go. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the impact of vacant positions on Mrs. Parks. And welcome, Mr. Chambers, new director. Thank you, Chair. It's good to be here. I understand that during the budget process, there were a lot of questions regarding positions that were in the Parks and Recreation Division, vacancies, how long vacancies had been there and so forth. And the question was asked once a new director came on board, which is me, to take a look at this. So in the last couple of months, we've been doing some internal work on this. And I'll just give you a quick overview as to what we've discovered and my findings. and I'll start with the overview we have 148 full-time funded classified and unclassified and and fund 1101 and then eight additional full-time positions in fund 4202 which is the ESP program so we have 156 positions full-time positions currently in the division and again And the council asked for us to do a review of that. So I want to come back and let you guys know what we found out. And what I did to start with June 1st and really do a quarterly review, because I started on June 1st, so I thought that was a good starting point. So on June 1st, we had 19 vacancies. And I took an arbitrary definition of what I consider to be entry level, which is grade 107 or less. And of those 19, nine of those were entry level positions. And the reason I think that's important is because we have such a turnover in those positions. That's just the nature of entry-level positions. Three of those 19 at that point in time had been recommended for hire, and so really it was out of our control. It was out of HR's control. It was really the employee who had been offered the jobs control. So we really had 16 that were still kind of in process in one way or another, either in our division or in HR's division. So then I looked at September 1st. We had 18 vacancies September 1st. Eight of those, again, were entry level, and five of those had been recommended for hire. So five had been offered to an employee, and we were waiting to hear what the employee had to say, which left us with 13. And even though the request was for an impact, I actually wanted to do an analysis and then do the impact. The analysis is that soon after I started, we began to look at our internal process and how fast it took us to get to the P1, P3 paperwork and get that turned around. And I made the decision internally that we need to do that faster than we were doing it. So we have an internal policy now that we will get that paperwork done within two weeks of an opening. We haven't always made that, especially it being the summer and just being as busy as it is during the summer. But that is our goal is to turn that paperwork around in two weeks. Number two is that at any point in time, one-half to two-thirds of all open positions are in HR. And that's not a criticism of HR. As a matter of fact, that's the way that's supposed to work. They have several steps that they have to go through in their vetting process that we don't have. So as soon as we do our part, it goes to HR. They do their part. So when you look at open positions, some of those are in our court, and then some of those are in the HR court. And that's kind of typically the way that works. We've had three entry-level positions that have had offers but have declined in that three-month period of time. So obviously that requires additional time. We would go through the process, interview, hire someone or make an offer to someone, and then they had turned the job down, and then we have to start the process all over again. Currently, seven vacancies, seven of those 18 that we have right now, are due to either recent resignations, retirees. We've had two that have retired in the last month or have had internal promotions. And I'll talk about internal promotions just in a minute in a little more detail. Four of those are on hold, and that's my decision. I have held four of those off. I've talked with the commissioner about this, and I think and we all think that there are possibilities that we might be able to use some of our employees in better positions than they are now. And rather than just continuing to replace positions that may or may not be the best place for them, we want to do some internal review and find out are there better places to put those. And so I've held a few of those for those reasons. Summer crunch, and that's not an excuse. It's just reality that summer is the busiest time for us. And so it does take us a little longer to go through the process in the summer than I think it would be in the winter. And so if we did this discussion three months from now, I think it would be a less time frame that you would see than you're seeing because we're talking about June through September. And then just a piece of information I thought was interesting, that since fall of 2012, we've filled 39 full-time positions. So in two years, we've had that kind of turnover. And again, a lot of that's entry-level positions, and I think that's just the nature of the beast. You asked for the impact. Obviously, any position being open is an impact. That goes without saying. Most of the positions that are open now are not the same positions that were open three months ago. And I think that's an important piece of information. The churn factor is just an unfortunate fact of who we have and the openings that we have. It's my desire that we're going to review vacancies. And, again, as I said earlier, we're going to find out if we have the right people and the right seats on the bus, to use a good, great analogy. and that's something I think is important and we think is important, so we're going to continue to look at that review. There have been times when internal promotions, and internal promotions are a good thing. We've had internal promotions where person A left, person B moved up to person A, person C moved up to person B, and person D moved up to person C. We've actually had that situation happen, so we've had an internal opening up to six months at times just because of internal promotions. That's a good problem to have, but nevertheless, it shows as a vacancy for a long period of time. So the bottom line, in my opinion, is that a vacancy rate of 12 to 14, which is less than 10% of the workforce, is our goal, and it's an attainable goal. And realizing that when we're in that 12 to 14 range, usually two to three to four of those are going to be at the person's level to accept the job or not accept the job, then we're talking about around 10. But that 12 to 14 is our goal, and that's the findings that we've come to. That's the impact that it has, and that's our analysis. So I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Council members, questions, comments? Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Brad. That's good. And I think that answers some of our questions. And it was my budget link, I think, that brought this to your attention. What is the time factor between the time that you actually recognize a vacancy and it goes through your department and then goes through HR before you can actually offer somebody a job? Just in general, what do you think that time factor is? Oh, six weeks to two months from the time that we were notified that there was a vacancy. Right, right. Okay. Any way that can be shortened? I mean, are there things that we can do to shorten that? I mean, I know some of it's obviously beyond your control. We can do better on our end. Part of it, I think, is going to be seasonal to a degree. It's true. Certainly, if we're talking winter, it will be shorter on our end. I think the fact that HR does the vetting process that they do is important, and I fully support that. It just takes time to do that. By the time they research, make sure people don't have a background. We have to do the background checks on everybody, make sure those come back clean, and ensure that we have our staff that have to get together in terms of interview times And as a matter of fact, we're going to do an interview this Thursday for the deputy director position for recreation. It took us 10 days for all of us to get our schedules worked together just so we could find time to carve a day out and do that. So I don't know that there's any way around the time factor, honestly. But that's probably a better question for Mr. Maxwell than it would be for me. I understand that. Actually, the CAO Hamilton seems to be interested in commenting on this. So please. Thank you, Sally. As soon as I take this mic to start talking about HR, you'll see everybody walk in the door. They always get nervous when I do this. We have been looking very, and I think Brad's analysis is very good, and it's very thoughtful. We have been looking, as we have gone through the comp study and personnel policies, as exactly to chart out how long it takes to do a job, to fill a job. days at the best. That's if there's a vacancy, you turn it in, and everything goes okay. There are a couple of steps that we're going to come back. There's one step that we're going to come back and talk to you about. And we are going to the Civil Service Commission twice on this, once to have the list approved, to have the list approved, and again later. And I think that probably we may want to cut one of those out, but that's some KRS things that we would have to talk about, and you would have to see and see the whole process, because we are true believers that Civil Service Commission needs to be there for coverage to make sure that this is operating correctly. The second thing is that we are also going to look at, it doesn't take very long, but everything has to come, Brad has to come back through the commissioner, and that doesn't take long. But we are going to be talking to the commissioners and the directors about the possibility on these direct jobs below deputy director. That that would just be simply they would process that and go straight to HR and skip the director's, the commissioner's step. So just a few things that hopefully are the best we could do would be to cut down two and a half weeks or so. But those are the steps, and we're going to bring those back to you all, but we've looked at this quite a bit. Thank you, Sally. And I think anything we can do to cut that time factor down would be a benefit to us as long as we're exercising due diligence, of course. I think so, too. And I think he made an interesting comment about the fact, and we noticed this on some other jobs, that if you have a review panel that's diverse and a good review panel, it takes several days to get all those schedules, you know, coordinated. And otherwise, you can move much faster if one person selects it. That's almost nobody's opinion. I don't think that gives you much at the end. And it's dangerous. It's dangerous. You're right. Thank you. Thank you, Sally. Thank you, Brad. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You had mentioned in your report that you made three offers and people rejected the offer. And can you tell me why they rejected the offer? It was an entry-level position and just the salary was too low. Okay. Well, were we not able to ascertain what somebody's salary requirements are? Do they, when we make an application, do they say what their expectations are? That's a question I had as well. Why would you apply for a job if you know what the salary is? But I don't know if people assume that even though there's a starting salary, they may be able to get more. I don't know what the thought process would be specifically. But that was a question I had, and that's the answer that seems to be common, is that particularly at the entry-level position, it's just they're not going to get enough. I mean, it has to be frustrating. You've gotten all the paperwork done. It's gone through HR. It's been vetted. Very much. And all this stuff. And then you offer the job and say, oh, that's not enough money. And we've invested that two to three months, and now we're back with even more time. Okay. Maybe that's something we could look at is how to eliminate that issue. Maybe in the very beginning of discussing what the pay scales are for a specific job with the applicant. It may have to be an HR function rather than yours, but maybe that could be done. Because, I mean, I feel your frustration. I have that happen to me occasionally. It's very disappointing after you recruited it and then you didn't hire. So thank you very much. Very nice report. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Brad. Hi. Thank you for this. I do agree with Sally. It's very thoughtful and thorough and really gives me at least a really good impression of what's going on in the Parks Department. You mentioned reorganizing, I guess, or reallocating some of the positions. Do you feel ready to talk about that at all, or do you want to wait and bring that back to us a little later? I would much rather do that. And some of this is in flux because we are constantly hiring people. And so the people that, frankly, that I had identified two or three months ago, now we've filled those positions, but we've had others pop up. So to say we're talking about these two specific positions wouldn't necessarily be accurate. But we are talking about where are our needs. And that's one of the, I think, the reasons that, I won't say that. My personal opinion is that it's important for me to look at the big picture and to determine where are our biggest needs, not necessarily where we may have openings. And that's one of the things that I'm still getting my arms around. That's great. Thank you. I appreciate this attention to detail and the macro perspective, and so I look forward to that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I have no other council members signed up. I'll just add my thanks for a very nice report. I think there are always issues about hiring. We've worked on them in other parts of government, and I look forward to having your continued analysis. And at this moment, I believe there's no further action we need to take, but we might invite you back at a later time. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, last substantive item on our agenda. I'm going to stay at the podium. This is the Parks Foundation. I was asked to do a, just a brief overview of a foundation, what it can do, purpose, benefits. So I wanted to do a very, and this is really going to be a brief overview of some of the things that a foundation can do, some of the challenges, some of the time frames, those kinds of things. So, and obviously we'll have time for questions afterward. And I am not a foundation expert, so I want to say that, you know, even if I had slept at a Holiday Inn Express, I still would not be a foundation expert. So I'm going to tell you what I know from working on the fringes of it. I do have a colleague and friend of mine who is probably considered to be the found Parks Foundation expert in the United States and can certainly bring him in. He's we've talked about it. He's excited about the possibility of coming down here. So I do have that as an option. The purpose of a Parks Foundation is is many fold, but I think you can boil it down to these three. It provides a dedicated place, and dedicated is the important part of this, so that people that have specific interests or specific programs that they want to see funded have a place that they can go and help support that for amenities, programs, development, new parks, new facilities, whatever it may be. Obviously, you have the 501c3 advantage for the tax write-off. And then it provides that conduit between park projects, the division, and the foundation to work together to help make these things happen. There are many benefits. As I said earlier, the fact that it's a tax write-off is an obvious one. working with the director and helping to identify those needed projects that may be outside the ability of the government here to fund, but yet are still important projects. And you know this way better than I do, that we have lots of those that have been discussed over the years and still are out there that we all feel are important. It's also important to note that it's not a substitute, though. It's not that we'll, we have a foundation in place, so there's no need to fund because that's not the purpose of a foundation. It's really that way to put the icing on the cake, if you will. The cake still needs to be in place, but this provides the icing and really allows things to happen. Clearly, the success of the foundation rests with the members of the board. And that's the, I mean, if there's ever where the boots are on the ground and the wheels meet the road, it's where those foundation members are. and their commitment to the success and their knowledge of the community and the potential funding sources that are out there. That's what makes a foundation successful. One of the most important is the naming rights and legacy gifts. And you heard from Roger earlier about naming rights, and obviously all of this just folds right into what a foundation can do. The foundation would have the opportunity to work not just with the donor and the director, but with the council and the board and the citizens and the people in that area to make sure that the project is the project that it needs to be. But just as importantly, in my opinion, is that you can actually have legacy money set aside that will make sure that that facility or that building is maintained to that standard in perpetuity. That's a very important thing that a foundation can allow to happen. It takes active management, but that's good because you want a board that's going to be actively managed. You want them out there helping to raise funds and not just sit back and hope and wait for donors to show up, but to know the community and to go and be proactive. All successful parks foundations have strong relationships with the director of those departments and the agencies they support. That's a common sense thing to say, but it's still something that's a benefit and important. And if you think of similar foundations in a region, the University of Kentucky, the Triangle Foundation, many, many others, they're all dedicated foundations and they're all actively managed. Another benefit is that private and confidential gifts are not only allowed but encouraged in some cases and are respected. So if people want to give money confidentially, a foundation allows that to happen. And again, the maintenance endowment, so I won't beat that up a second time, but that's really an important part of what a foundation can do. So the process, and there are many steps to the process. I've condensed them down to just the four or five that would be the most important to know about now. The selection of the foundation board would be by the council here. and the election of officers would take place at the board level. The selection process is outside the Parks and Recreation Division, and that's important because you have to have that arm's length from a legal standpoint. And then the foundation would work to create their bylaws. They would establish their legal instrument on how money can be acquired and solicited. A business plan would be put together. The financial paperwork, financial advisor would be vetted and selected to work with the foundation in terms of how to handle all of the money. And then time. There's just going to be time required to raise money and getting the foundation off the ground. And then once established and it's up and running and you have that relationship established, then there would be a partnership between the foundation and the Parks and Recreation Division. It's an interesting note. Again, I talked to Mr. Kegler, my colleague friend I was mentioning earlier, and he had told me that he had read somewhere in a document that he gets that the IRS currently has a backlog of 50,000 501c3 applications. So it's a popular thing to do to try to become a 501c3. So the next steps would be an invitation to Bill Kegler or whoever that's recognized and that could come in here and talk about that if that's something you'd wish to get into. Gauge the interest. Is there interest in a foundation? And then obviously we will revisit this. We will talk about this many times. We'll come back before you many times, get your input, find out what your interest level is if you think it's something that's worthwhile pursuing. And if so, then we will continue to pursue it. There are challenges, as there are with any new endeavors. Just some of those, the time to establish. As I mentioned, there is time involved. And sometimes the time to establish it may discourage some board members that come in on the front end and want to hit, you know, let's do something right now. and it's going to take some time for all those things to happen. There are some upfront costs to establish the foundation. Not many, but there are some. It requires that continuous communication between the board and the Parks and Recreation Division to establish the priorities. It's really important that if Mrs. Jones shows up and calls the foundation and says, I want to give a couple million dollars to build a ski slope in Lexington, that they'd call the division and say, do you guys really need a ski slope? And so we'd want to have that partnership and that two-way dialogue. Initial appointments may be hard to fill, or you may have applicants, lots of people that want to fill just a few slots, so you can have it on either side of that, but that could be a challenge. And then, again, the success is really predicated on a parallel alignment, that the board and the division and the government itself are all in alignment in terms of the needs and what we think. Foundation funding nonessential projects is counterproductive, and I've talked to people, other colleagues of mine over the years, that have had foundations in their organizations, and most of the time they're great, but every once in a while you'll hear the story about, you know, we were told we had money for this and we had no idea about doing it. But the foundation wanted to throw money at it. So we want to make sure that we're in alignment, that we do discuss, that we do bring things back before the council so that we're all on the same page. And I think that's the most critical point. It's not necessarily a challenge, but it's an important point. So that's the overview. It's something I think that really has a ton of potential here, and I'm excited about just seeing what we can do with it and how it can help the division. And I'd be happy to answer any questions and just see how you feel about it as well. Okay, thank you for that. And we have some people signed up. Councilmember Beard. Thank you, Chair. Where do you see the Parks Advisory Board fitting into this? It's one of the strongest boards we have and very active. And I can see maybe some noses getting bloodied over. My personal opinion was they would certainly, I would hope that they would certainly have significant input into the board members. I don't think there would be anything that would prohibit some members of the Parks Advisory Board from being on the foundation board. That would be just how the bylaws are set up. But that would certainly make a lot of sense. I mean, they're the ones, as you were mentioning, they know the workings of the division. So it would make perfect sense to have the advisory board heavily involved with that. And further, what about council involvement on the board, the foundation board? That typically is not, and again, I'm not a foundation expert, but that's typically not a thing that legally is, I won't say it's not allowed, but I think it's discouraged from a legal standpoint because then there's not a separation between the two. I'm not talking about five or six people. I'm talking about one or two. I can check into that or, you know, again, someone who knows more about it than I do would answer that better than I can. but I can look it up and get back with you. Okay, fine. Fine. Thank you. Thank you, Jared. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Once again, thank you, Brad. One quick question, and that has to do with leadership of the foundation. Obviously, a project like this needs enthusiastic and expert leadership to make it work. Is there a thought about who would lead it and how that person would be appointed and so forth? That would certainly be a council appointment. And I think that would be a really good question for Mr. Kegler to ask how that's done in other communities that he's worked with in terms of that initial board appointment. my assumption is that the board would be appointed and the board itself would elect the chair of the board, of the foundation board. So that leadership position would come from among the board members themselves. I see. But again, that's my assumption. So it would not be someone that would be the leader in terms of fundraising that would be employed on a part-time or full-time position to lead this effort. Because, frankly, I don't see how a volunteer board member would have the time or the expertise to go out and seek funds. And if that's the case, I guess my question would be how would we pay somebody like that? That's a very good question. and one I didn't touch on, but in the beginning, it may not be financially the thing to do up front, but sooner rather than later, you would want to have paid staff. You would want to have foundation staff, so that's a very good point. That staff person could be paid for by whoever. It could be paid for by the government. It could be paid for by the foundation, which would be more traditional. So part of their fundraising activities would go toward paying staff, and that's very common. Almost all foundation boards of any size would have paid staff. Okay, thank you. I thought there was some – there is some regulation. I don't know the legal term here, but there's some – for some reason, And using foundation funds to hire someone is sometimes questionable, particularly if they are dealing with the profit somehow. I'm not sure exactly what that is, but I know there's some regulation there that prevents us from that. I'm sure there is some separation, but I know that almost all foundations have staff, so there is a way to make that happen. Okay. Well, anyway, I was curious of that, Brad. I think that's a key to making this work. I agree. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I see no other council members signed up. I have a couple of comments. First is I don't believe there's any downside to having a foundation. It may make things slightly more complex, but it would be greatly to our advantage to have another body capable of raising funds and promoting parks. the other cities that I'm most familiar with that have foundation boards have done a much better job I think of developing and maintaining their parks than we have parks needs more attention it needs more funding we have limited funding sources within government so a foundation is obviously I think would be a big advantage the question of how to put it together and who leads it, I think, is really crucial. And the first step might be to have expertise, as you've indicated, but that would require a funding proposal from the Parks Department. Have you thought about that? Is that something you're considering? Yes, sir. We've talked about it. Commissioner Reed and I have talked about it on more than one occasion, not to the point where we have a firm proposal to put together to bring back, but we certainly have been in discussion about it. So I know it's an exciting concept for both of us, and I think it's something that we'll pursue if that's the direction we're given. Well, I guess I can speak for myself and say, yes, I'd like to see some, at least a proposal come forward for council to consider. There's no, sometimes anyway, or most often there's no gain to be had if you're not willing to invest a little bit up front in determining an appropriate path forward. So I would encourage you, and I'll be happy to have other council members weigh in on this, but I would encourage you to come back to this committee with a specific proposal for how we might proceed, whether that means working more on the structure and the functioning of that board and or bringing in someone who can help with that and who can help determine whether there's enough interest and enthusiasm in the community to really support something like this. We don't want to start an effort that we don't think is going to be successful, but I think it's something that could really make a big difference for parks, could make a big difference for the city. So my own inclination would say please keep working on that and bring something back to us that's more specific. Will do. I'd be happy to. Okay. Any other comments, questions? If not, thank you very much for that presentation. Sure. Okay. I think that brings us up to the items that have been referred to committee on the back page of the packet. Are there any motions for changes? There's a long list. I don't want to go through them one by one, but are there any motions for either removal or moving things up onto the agenda? Council member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The one item that I recognize perhaps as an opportunity to be removed from committee is the third item listed that's moving HR from the Department of Law to the office of the CAO. I believe that has been implemented. Can somebody come? That has. I'll make a motion to remove. I have a motion and a second to remove that item. Any further discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Any other motions? Hearing none, we'll leave the list as is. We might work on it between now and the next session. If there is no further business, I would entertain a motion for adjournment. I approve. Second. Motion is second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you all.