# Urban County Council Work Session on 2014-09-09 3:00 PM - Packet - September 9, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 9, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3450 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3450?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-09-09 - **Last revised**: September 9, 2014 - **Length**: 13,908 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a Council Work Session on September 9, 2014, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber, with Vice Mayor Gorton presiding. The meeting addressed nine agenda items covering routine government business including rezoning requests, budget amendments, and various administrative matters. The council took 12 votes during the session, approving items related to requested rezonings and docket approval, summary approvals, budget amendments, new business items, and the mayor's report. No public comments were received during either of the designated public comment periods for issues on or off the agenda. The session concluded with standard adjournment procedures after completing all scheduled business items. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 9, 2014 meeting: • Ellinger • Ford • Akers • Lawless • Beard • Farmer • Stinnett • Myers • Scutchfield • Mossotti • Clarke • Henson • Lane **Absent:** Kay No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 12 motions, all of which passed unanimously with all 13 council members voting in favor. The voting members were Ellinger, Ford, Akers, Lawless, Beard, Farmer, Stinnett, Myers, Scutchfield, Mossotti, Clarke, Henson, and Lane. The council began by approving the docket on a motion by Akers, seconded by Ellinger. Two items were subsequently placed on the docket without hearings: Akers motioned to place item #11 on the docket without a hearing (seconded by Farmer), and Farmer motioned to place item #12 on the docket without a hearing (seconded by Lane). Administrative matters included approval of the August 19, 2014 work session summary on a motion by Stinnett, seconded by Farmer. The council also approved budget amendments on a motion by Stinnett, seconded by Ellinger. Several agenda items received approval: new business was approved on a motion by Farmer, seconded by Scutchfield; language corrections in item F were approved on a motion by Ellinger, seconded by Farmer; neighborhood development funds were approved on a motion by Mossotti, seconded by Stinnett; and the Mayor's Report was approved on a motion by Akers, seconded by Farmer. The council voted to enter closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 (1)9c) for discussing pending litigation on a motion by Ellinger, seconded by Farmer. They later returned from closed session on a motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Stinnett. The meeting concluded with adjournment on a motion by Scutchfield, seconded by Myers. All votes resulted in 13 ayes, 0 nays, and 0 abstentions. No transcript timestamps were available for these votes. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial authorizations totaling over $1.2 million in grant-related activities. **Federal Emergency Management Funding Application** The council considered Resolution L0869-14, which authorizes the submission of an application to the Kentucky Division of Emergency Management requesting federal funds totaling $871,537.50. These funds would be sourced from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood Mitigation Assistance/Pre-Disaster Mitigation Programs. The substantial funding request represents the city's efforts to access federal resources for flood prevention and disaster preparedness initiatives. **Stormwater Quality Infrastructure Grant** Resolution L0922-14 authorizes the execution of an agreement awarding a Class B (Infrastructure) Stormwater Quality Projects Incentive Grant to Lexmark International, Inc. in the amount of $350,000.00. This grant represents a partnership between the city and the major technology company to support infrastructure improvements related to stormwater quality management. The two financial actions demonstrate the city's strategic approach to leveraging both federal disaster mitigation resources and private sector partnerships to address critical infrastructure needs. The emergency management funding application shows proactive planning for flood mitigation, while the Lexmark grant reflects ongoing efforts to improve environmental infrastructure through collaboration with local businesses. Combined, these authorizations represent $1,221,537.50 in grant funding activities, with the city both seeking federal assistance and providing incentive funding to support private sector infrastructure improvements that benefit overall municipal stormwater management systems. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda The meeting opened with a public comment period dedicated to issues listed on the agenda. This segment provided an opportunity for community members to address the governing body regarding specific items scheduled for discussion during the meeting. No specific speakers, presentations, or concerns were documented during this public comment period. The agenda item served as an informational component of the meeting, allowing for public input on matters that would be formally addressed later in the session. The public comment period concluded without recorded discussion or debate, proceeding to the subsequent agenda items for formal consideration by the governing body. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Requested Rezonings/ Docket Approval The council reviewed and discussed requested rezonings and docket items during this portion of the meeting. Council members Akers and Ellinger were the primary speakers addressing these zoning matters. The discussion focused on evaluating the submitted rezoning requests and determining their appropriateness for approval. While specific details of the individual rezoning cases were not captured in the available records, the council engaged in deliberation regarding the merits of the proposals before them. Following their review and discussion of the rezoning requests and docket items, the council voted to approve the matters under consideration. The approval indicates that the council found the requested zoning changes to be consistent with municipal planning objectives and appropriate for the affected properties. The outcome of this agenda item was the formal approval of the requested rezonings and docket items that had been presented to the council for their consideration. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Approval of Summary The council reviewed and approved the summary of their previous work session that was held on August 19, 2014. Council members Stinnett and Farmer participated in the discussion of this agenda item. The approval process proceeded without significant debate or concerns raised by council members. Following the discussion, the council voted to approve the summary as presented. **Outcome:** The summary of the August 19, 2014 work session was approved by the council. ## Budget Amendments The council discussed and approved various budget amendments during the meeting. The discussion was led by key speakers Stinnett and Ellinger, who presented the proposed changes to the budget. While specific details of the individual amendments were not captured in the available meeting data, the council engaged in discussion regarding the various budget modifications being proposed. The amendments likely involved adjustments to existing budget allocations, transfers between departments or funds, or other financial modifications necessary for municipal operations. Following the presentation and discussion of the budget amendments, the council voted to approve the proposed changes. The approval of these amendments allows the city to proceed with the financial adjustments as outlined in the proposals. The successful passage of the budget amendments demonstrates the council's agreement on the necessity and appropriateness of the financial modifications presented during this agenda item. ## New Business The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. Council members Farmer and Scutchfield served as the key speakers for the discussion of these matters. The council reviewed and deliberated on the new business items that were brought forward for consideration. Following their discussion, the council voted to approve the new business items that were presented. *Note: Specific details about the individual new business items, the nature of the discussion, and transcript timestamps are not available in the provided meeting materials.* ## Continuing Business/ Presentations The council received presentations on various ongoing projects and initiatives during this portion of the September 9, 2014 meeting. This agenda item served an informational purpose, allowing staff and officials to update the council on the status of continuing business matters. The session was structured as a presentation format, providing council members with updates on previously discussed items and ongoing municipal projects. However, specific details about the individual presentations, including the names of presenters, the particular projects or initiatives covered, and the content of the discussions are not available in the meeting records. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it was designated for informational purposes only. The presentations allowed council members to stay informed about the progress of various municipal matters and ongoing business items that required continued oversight or monitoring. The lack of detailed information about specific speakers, presentation topics, or discussion points suggests this may have been a routine update session covering multiple brief reports rather than in-depth presentations on major initiatives. ## Mayor's Report The Mayor's Report was presented during the September 9, 2014 council meeting. The report was delivered with participation from key speakers Akers and Farmer. Following the presentation of the Mayor's Report, the council took action to formally approve the report. No specific details about the content of the report or any discussion points were provided in the available meeting materials. The agenda item concluded with the council's approval of the Mayor's Report as presented. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed discussion content were not available in the source materials for this agenda item.* ## Public Comment - Issues Not on Agenda The council opened the floor for public comments on issues not listed on the agenda during the September 9, 2014 meeting. This portion of the meeting provided an opportunity for community members to address the council on matters of local concern that were not scheduled for formal discussion. No specific transcript timestamp or detailed record of speakers and topics was available in the meeting documentation for this public comment period. The agenda item was designated as informational, indicating that no formal action was taken by the council in response to any comments received. This public comment period represents a standard practice in municipal governance, allowing residents to bring forward issues, concerns, or suggestions that may not have been included in the formal meeting agenda. Such sessions typically provide a forum for community engagement and help ensure that local government remains accessible to public input on a wide range of municipal matters. The outcome of this agenda item was recorded as informational only, meaning the council received any public input without taking immediate legislative or administrative action during this meeting. ## Adjournment The meeting was formally adjourned at 4:50 PM following discussion between key participants. **Key Participants:** - Scutchfield - Myers The adjournment motion was approved, bringing the September 9, 2014 meeting to a close. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve the docket - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Place #11 on the docket without a hearing - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Place #12 on the docket without a hearing - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve the August 19, 2014 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve new business - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Correct language in item F - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Approve the Mayor’s Report - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810 (1)9c) for the purpose of discussing pending litigation - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Return from closed session - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Adjournment --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo And this is a work session of the council, and I will call the meeting. As soon as our council members, we've got a quorum here. Okay. I'll call the meeting to order, and begin with a public comment for issues on the agenda. Is anyone signed up for issues on the agenda? Richard? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Then we can move to, actually, before we move to the docket approval, we have some guests with us today and a proclamation, and I'm going to ask Council Member Stennett to join me at the podium. And the reason we're going to move this up, folks, unless there's objection, is that our guests, we're going to let them go on with their work. All right. I want to ask Sue Jacobs and Kathy Tabb to please join me, Kathy and Sue. Sue and Kathy and Council Member Stennett. Sue and Kathy are board members of Bluegrass Ovarian Cancer Support. That's the acronym, B-O-C-S, right? Right. So I know that many of our council members, everyone perhaps, and many in our audience and our viewing audience as well, walking through downtown, you have noticed the teal ribbons tied around the streetlights. And the goal of those ribbons is to turn the town teal this September and raise awareness for ovarian cancer. In large part, awareness is knowing the silent symptoms of ovarian cancer. So in recognition of turning the town teal, I will now read proclamation and then ask Council Members Stenet to speak and Sue and Kathy as well. All right. So what this reads is, our proclamation reads, whereas ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancers in the United States, and whereas since 1987 the University of Kentucky Markey Cancer Center has offered a free ovarian cancer screening program to more than 37,000 Kentucky women, and whereas thanks to the local volunteers who have turned the town teal and are seeking to raise awareness of this disease, which is diagnosed in more than 22,000 women nationwide each year, now therefore I, Jim Gray, on behalf of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, Mayor of Lexington, do hereby declare September 2014 as Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. And I'll ask Councilmember Stenet to speak now because I know he was very involved in helping and assisting in getting the ribbons on Main Street. Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to take a moment to thank Kathy and Sue for being such good stewards of our community and bringing awareness to this issue. Because it wasn't until I shared my own story about my mother that I met Kathy. And as we were sharing stories, she mentioned the Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. And that's how we got here today is because we shared our story. And so many other people can relate to those stories. And we're not saying there's not other cancers to be aware of in September or October or whenever. But we're saying this one's very important because it only pertains to women as well. And so many women do not survive this because of an early screening that could prevent it in a lot of cases. And I just want to thank you all and thank the mayor's office, especially Laura Houlihan, for jumping on board and helping us. She did a great job. And this is truly a first-time event. but hopefully one that will last generations and years to come, that we can continue fighting this one cancer and maybe see success going forward. But thank you all. I'd like to thank everyone for allowing us to turn Lexington teal. Ovarian cancer is often an overshadowed cancer, but we are hoping that these ribbons, and I know they are because we've heard from a lot of people who've seen them already, there is no test for ovarian cancer. That's what makes it so deadly. The symptoms are very vague, and because there is no test, most cancers are not reported in an early stage. Only 15% of them are reported at an early stage, which Sue and I both were, which is why we're here carrying this torch. So it is our hope that no one will ever have to say goodbye to a mother as I did to a sister, a friend, a daughter because of ovarian cancer. And you all are helping us in that quest. Thank you. And I wanted to thank you all as well and to let you know Lexington's on the map. photos of the ribbons and video of the ribbons that Kathy and her husband have taken are on the internet. And a lot of ovarian cancer organizations are extremely proud of Lexington. And we are so glad that you all supported us. And thank you very much. Thank you all. So Sue and Kathy, why don't you all join us? and I'll ask council members if they'll join together behind us as we share the proclamation and take a picture. All right, everybody smile. Thank you so very much. And, Mayor, if I can, before they leave, I also just wanted to acknowledge Dr. Vinogal's program at the University of Kentucky. I'm actually one of the 37,000 patients as a survivor of breast cancer. I have had the screenings for ovarian cancer at UK, and it's a tremendous program. It's the only program in the country that provides free ovarian cancer screenings for women over 50 or women who have survived breast cancer. So it is an asset to Lexington. It's an asset to the women all throughout the state of Kentucky. They serve women from the rural regions, as well as women in Lexington. And so I just want to say thank you all for raising this awareness. I was thrilled to see the teal ribbons on the lamps, and I appreciate Councilmember Senate for bringing this to the council and to the city's attention. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Akers. Councilmember Soddy. Mayor, I just withdrew, but I just wanted to say what Councilmember Akers say. I take advantage of that program every August for free ovarian cancer screening, and thank goodness we have a facility like that and a program that can provide that service. We're very fortunate. Thank you. Thank you. All right, that allows us now to move on to the docket approval. Is there a motion? Second. Motion by Council Member Beard and second by Council Member Myers. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say yes. Aye, rather. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. And next on our agenda is Council Member Clark. Yes, sir. I'm not sure this is the appropriate time, but on the docket approval and new business items, I have a recommendation to make at the appropriate time. All right, so then we'll do it at work for... We're doing it now, right? All right. Go ahead, Councilman Clark. I would like to move that we submit letter A to the safety committee. The reason for this is that I have received some information about the use of Chinese lanterns by folks who use this as part of their celebration. And we just need more discussion. and I would like to put that into a committee rather than on the docket. Motion by Council Member Clark to place item A in committee. Motion second by Council Member Scotchfield. All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. well i'm thinking that we'll now approve the get a vote on approving the docket as amended um is there a motion to approve the docket as amended motion by council member farmer second by council member acres is there any discussion all right hearing none then we can take a vote all in favor please say aye Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right, next is, is there a motion to approve the summary? So moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer and a second by Council Member Hanson. Is there any discussion? All right, hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Budget amendments is next. Is there a motion? Move approval, Mayor. Second. Motion by Councilmember Farmer and second by Councilmember Ellinger. Second. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Farmer. Yes, sir, just a question on the one about the James Lane Allen Fountain of Youth. What will be accomplished for the investment here? It's a beautiful artwork. I'm just interested in what we're going to do. This is to provide funds in the correct department for improvements to the James Lane Allen Fountain of Youth in Grants Park. $30,000. Mayor, I can. Wait a minute. Okay. Council Member Ford. I think I can. Council Members, if you guys will recall, a year or two ago during fund balance, we appropriated approximately $147,000 towards the restoration of that fountain. The $30,000 represents the match that the Neighborhood Association has brought forward. Excellent. I believe that's correct, sir. I think we're just about ready to finally get going with that project. I hope that's the case. We're in the process. We had to rebid the project. We've received the bids coming back in either today or tomorrow, and we'll proceed on with it from that point. I was interested and supportive. Thank you both gentlemen. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Stanton. Thank you, Mayor. I have questions on the budget entries in regards to the training. I'm going back to fiscal year 2010 for fire and police training. Are we amending our past CAFERS? Is that what we're doing? Why is it needed to put... We're reconciling these projects. They go back to 2010. This is police training, fire training. It's the incentive funds that are provided to each sworn officer every month. We budget a certain amount. And once the projects are charged, and if we don't have all of the firefighters or all of the police officers that we budgeted for, we have excess funds left. So we're basically reconciling these projects to fit the accounting, the actuals. Okay, so are they rolling over in the general fund each budget year? No, they are grants. They end at the end of every fiscal year. So up until fiscal year 2015, which is what we're in now, there's no additional monies out there. This closes them all out. Once each project ends at the end of each fiscal year, so that even though we haven't made the reconciliation or the adjustments, the projects are over, the funds are not available to us after the end of the fiscal year, And these funds are not available for any other purpose than to provide the eligible sworn officers with their monthly incentive. So we're confident they were spent on what we budgeted them for. Yes, they were. So why the need to go back to 2010? Because these projects with PeopleSoft, the funds, the accounting lives forever. So sometimes when I'm trying to amend a project in 2015, I can't because of some problem that happened in 2010. But if I go back and do the budget amendment, it clears the way to do a current budget amendment. So is this a computer cleanup? Is that what we're talking about? We're reconciling the projects to fit the actuals. This is over $3 million if you add them all up. But those are pluses and minuses. We're not necessarily getting rid of $3 million worth of funds. They're pluses and minuses. Okay. We can have more conversation later. I'll let this one go for now. We could show it to you at a computer screen. You might find it interesting. You probably wouldn't. As long as we've trained, you'd be surprised what I find interesting. Several people look at this. It's not just me. Yeah, as long as fire and police have got their training and everyone's been accounted for, I'm good right now. We would have heard from all of them if they had not received their incentives. I agree with that. Thank you, Irene, for your precision. And you as well, Council Member Stennett. Is there any further discussion on new business motion? All right, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That leads us to new business. Move approval. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion? Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. My first one is on item F, which is page 18. This is an amendment to the Turflin Town Center TIF ordinance. My question simply is, is there anything in this action that would sublimate anything that we had previously done with this TIF? No. The amended application just notes, you will recall originally about a year ago when we did this, we were in the process of looking for sites for a new senior citizen center. That was noted as one of the uses of this site since UK has announced their clinic here. So those two notations have made to clean up the application and get everything in order. Thank you very much. Next is on page 25, item L, approval of the project management consulting services for implementation of the new occupational tax system, as outlined in the statement of work for phase one. How does this integrate into what we call our accounting system? It's project management for us to implement the new software system we're doing for the tax revenue system. So this would give us? It'll help us manage the project from our side. We're doing a as-is documentation process to document what we're doing now to build the system in the future will go live next year. And this will work and be great and everything's good? That's the plan, yes. Okay, well done. Thank you. And I think my last one is on item M on page 26. This has to do with the sewer revenue refunding bonds. And this talks about how many are being refunded. I'm just wondering how much does this save us or what change does this make this big numbers here, $32 million and $13 million. Sir? Mr. O'Mara. Yes, we gave a presentation a week or two weeks ago about restructuring the outstanding bonds to look forward so that we have less restrictive covenants for future bond issuance. That's right. And so this is authorizing that refunding and defeasance of the two existing bonds so that we are more modern. Our current bond covenants were from the 1980s. Wow. So we're trying to get into the 21st century. So it doesn't really have an effect on price or cost. It's just an updating in the verbiage that surrounds them? Well, it's actually a total restructuring. It's pretty complex. We've spent about four or five months working on this on the legal side. Yes, sir. But the actual refunding is a net neutral cash flow. but it enables us to hopefully save money in the future, the next 10 years, while we're doing this redo of our sewer system. That's all excellent. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a follow-up to letter L. This is... Mr. O'Mara, it looks like a rusty. Yep. Yep. So you say that phase one is $131,000? That is correct. So is there a phase two and three and four, or how many phases? There could possibly be a phase two when we get through the first part of developing the system and going forward, we would have to come back for a phase two at a later date. Do you have any idea how much that cost will be? I have no idea at this time, because it would be based on hours. So until we can get where we are and how the system is going to be, we will know more then. So what would Phase 2 consist of, then? Project management. Okay, so not the implementation. No, the actual usage. It would be project management, not the project itself, the actual software. I see. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. All right. Thank you, Council Member Akers. All right. No further, no, Council Members have signed on for additional comments or questions, which allows us to take a vote on the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. Allows us to move to continuing business and presentations. All right. Is there a motion on the NDFs? Motion by Council Member Akers and a second by Council Member Ellinger to approve the NDFs. Is there any discussion? All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to add on to the neighborhood development funds. So I move to walk on two additional NDF allocations for September 11th council meeting, one for the Gardenside Neighborhood Association in the amount of $225, and one to the Colony Neighborhood Association in the amount of $500. All right. It's a motion by Councilmember Hanson, seconded by Councilmember Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. We can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Did we get a motion on the original? So that was a motion to amend, right? All right. So we can take a vote now on the original motion. All in favor of the motion as amended, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. Next is a summary of the August 12th General Government Committee by Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. The first item on the agenda was approval of the summary for March 4, 2014, and that was passed as amended without dissent. Second item was wireless device policies. CIO Aldona Velocenti presented an update to the committee regarding the procurement, security issues, and use of wireless devices. She also reported on the status of a bring-your-own-device policy. some discussion and then the next steps in the process the CAO policy related to wireless devices currently being reviewed by the Department of Law expected to become an official policy in September 2014 there was no action required of the committee the third item on the agenda the coroner's office salary and classification CAO Hamilton updated the committee on the request from Council Member Henson regarding the coroner's office hazardous pay. John Maxwell from HR also commented on the issue, recommended amending the ordinance to address this issue, and Vice Mayor Gorton requested that the proposed ordinance amendment be brought to the next meeting. The item was kept in committee. The fourth item on the agenda, alcohol sales on election day. Vice Mayor Gorton introduced the item, then made a motion to approve an ordinance repealing section 3-21E of the Code of Ordinances pertaining to the sale, giving away, or delivery of alcoholic beverages on any primary or regular election day and renumbering the Code of Ordinances. Accordingly, the motion passed unanimously. And I believe that means that I would make a motion to put that on the agenda for the council. All right. And then the next docket. Motion by Council Member Kaye. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion on the motion? All right. Hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. The fifth item had to do with items referred. And on a motion by Vice Mayor Gorton, we removed the alcohol sales on the election day since it was being forwarded to council. Staff Member Craig Benz noted that the Neighborhood Parks Task Force item was previously removed by the committee, remained on the list due to a clerical error, and that was removed. And Council Member Myers requested that the University of Kentucky's policy on cell phones be brought to the next meeting. That was all the business we had. The meeting was adjourned at that time. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. And next on our agenda is a Planning and Public Works Committee summary by Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. These are the notes of our August 12th meeting, which we passed during our committee meeting just before this with one addition of adding everyone on the roster who is in attendance. Other than that, we had approved the summary for the July meeting at our August meeting. The second item was an update or a presentation by Judy Needham, the Facilities Planning Manager for the University of Kentucky, about the University of Kentucky's Master Plan update. It was very newsworthy, had a lot of good stuff and commentary in it. I guess top line was they're looking kind of for a new route or way through campus other than the current Rose Street. They have also formally requested the transfer of ownership of Washington Avenue from LFUCG back to UK for green space reclamation and to enhance pedestrian usage of the space. There was other comments. and then there was looks like the idea there's going to be one or more roundabouts on alumni drive as as it is improved it was really an excellent conversation that resulted in great information but no action by the committee item three was p1 text amendment for mobile food vendors this had to do with three or four different options that were brought to the committee by the division of planning about how we might add food vendors into the into the p1 zone that conversation led to a motion by Kay second by Ellinger to approve alternative to which is under unrestricted accessory use within 500 feet or greater from residential zoning and conditional if less than 500 feet and to forward to council for consideration this for this results in a conversation by smear Gordon stated a concern that the board of judgment could approve the accessory use when less than 500 feet from residential zoning and clarified any P1 zone property can apply. In response to a question from Councilmember Ford, Director King stated that the government usually cannot regulate the hours of accessory use. King discussed the intent of P1 uses as transitions between residential and higher intensity commercial uses. Councilmember Kay asked for clarification regarding Board of Adjustment approvals and Kay stated that any alternative requiring conditional approvals would involve the Board of Adjustment. At that point, the motion failed in a tie with 4 yes and 4 no. So there's nothing to bring forward for action today. However, the issue does remain in committee. We had item four was municipal aid program update, which we had last month and at our meeting just now, which resulted in some commentary about most specifically about when and if we can use municipal aid program funds for alternative modes of transportation such as trails. And then lastly, we had a very brief, as we were running late, a very brief discussion about the street light installation plan, which is going very well. I would say we're getting it done, if you will. Kentucky Utilities has three crews actively installing lights, and 60 to 90 lights can be installed each month. And there are currently 652 lights on the list, and approximately 450 still require installation. That, again, was just by way of update, and our meeting then adjourned at 253. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Next is the Economic Development Committee of the Whole. Summary by Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. As usual, we have a ream of paper here with lots of printing on it, and it's hard to pare it down. I called the meeting to order at 104 p.m. on August 19th. We had 14 of our 15 council members were in attendance. A motion by Clark and a second by Ellinger, the summary of the May 13th, 2014 Economic Development Committee of the Whole meeting, as amended, was approved unanimously. We then heard from Ms. Ashton Wright, who is our new food coordinator, an update on her activities. She pointed out that she was developing a strategic plan for food-related economic and agricultural development, and two, to improve nutritional health in the region, and three, increased coordination and collaboration within the food community. She discussed relationship-building efforts that could form the basis for the strategic plan and increased coordination. She identified numerous connections she has made in the community. She also discussed the Food Advisory Committee that is overseeing her work on a policy level. Ms. Wright stated she is working on several related initiatives, including new market opportunities for increasing farm income, facilitating grower meetings, coordinating with and between Kentucky Proud efforts and local restauranteurs. Ms. Wright discussed efforts to market the Bluegrass Farm to Table initiative. She identified other projects, including producing a map of Lexington restaurants who source local food. Local food procurement efforts, winterizing the Fifth Third Pavilion, in coordination with the upcoming American Farmland Trust Conference. She discussed efforts to market locally grown and raise food to consumers with an emphasis on underserved populations. She also discussed the launch of a social media campaign and a website. Council Member Lane discussed the agricultural areas within the 12th District and the tremendous impact agriculture has on Lexington. Councilmember Clark discussed the tremendous benefits this effort will have for all of Lexington in terms of nutrition for families and more income for the farm community. In response to a question from Councilmember Ellinger, Ms. Wright discussed the status of the mobile food outreach program. Councilmember Myers discussed utilizing Wright's work into the Gainesway small area planning process. He also discussed the food desert initiative as well as efforts to source more local food procurement for community corrections, parks, and family care center and the day treatment center. In response to a question from Myers, Ms. Wright discussed efforts to increase local sourced foods for the Fayette County School District procurement. Council Member Stennett asked about outcomes and performance measures. In response, Ms. Wright addressed the challenges of quantifying results. She stated that the Louisville program attempts to quantify relationship building efforts rather than attempting to quantify economic impacts. Council Member Stennett and Kevin Atkins discussed where the food coordinator office should be housed. Council Member Ford discussed the availability of healthy nutrition foods for families, particularly within the inner city. In response to a question from Councilmember Massadi, Ms. Wright stated that the most needed priority is local food production and processing facilities. Councilmember Scutchfield discussed nutrition programs in schools and in the afterschool center. Ms. Wright stated that starting on a small scale in an afternoon school program would be advantageous for many of the smaller family farms. In response to questions from Councilmember Akers, Ms. Wright discussed methods to increase farm capacity as well as efforts to increase urban farming viability. Councilmember Akers discussed increasing urban farming capacity initiatives. Councilmember Beard discussed the economics of locally sourced food sales. In response to a question from Councilmember Beard, Ms. Wright discussed distribution opportunities of locally sourced food at large food chains. No action was taken on this presentation. We then heard from the Downtown Development Authority. Jeff Fugate, president of the Downtown Development Authority, gave this presentation. He stated the mission of the DDA is to promote physical and economic development to strengthen downtown Lexington as the cultural and economic heart of central Kentucky. Mr. Fugate stated that the DDA drives investment into the central business district and surrounding neighborhoods for providing actionable urban design and real estate analysis for both public and private sectors. Mr. Fugate stated that the DDA is involved in community outreach, education, and public involvement. Mr. Fugate discussed several initiatives, including the old courthouse redevelopment plan, as well as various trails, parks, and streetscape projects. He also discussed the recently updated website with reliable and credible information and community data. He discussed the need to update the downtown master plan, support provided to affordable housing initiatives, and support given to leasing and development efforts. Mr. Fugate also discussed the limestone commercial corridor study in the 10-year downtown capital plan. Council Member Massadi asked for examples of recent work of the DDA pertaining to redevelopment and leasing opportunities. opportunities. In response, Mr. Fugate stated that he could not give an example of a completed project yet. Mr. Fugate did discuss efforts to redevelop downtown commercial properties as well as to promote affordable housing projects throughout the community. Council Member Standard asked about the need to update downtown master plan as it was not fully supported by the council nor was it ever adopted by the council. In response, Mr. Fugate stated that it was the goal of the DDA to bring a plan that will be fully embraced by the council, the mayor, and the community. In response to a question from Councilmember Stenet, Mr. Fugate discussed the current plans for the stabilization of the old courthouse. Mr. Fugate indicated he would come back to the council this winter with specific recommendations, including a financing package. In response to the question about parks, Mr. Fugate gave examples of how parks in other cities have revitalized their respective downtowns. Mr. Fugate stated that by the end of the year, he will be providing to Council a feasibility study with financing recommendations by the end of 2014. Councilmember Clark stated that he was very supportive of efforts to revitalize downtown. In response to questions from Clark, Mr. Fugate discussed the linkages between the DDA and the design excellence efforts, as well as the jobs fund program. Councilmember Clark discussed the need for the DDA to develop and utilize specific strategic goals with estimated timetables for implementation. Councilmember Clark also addressed plans by the development of a 10-year downtown capital plan. In response to a question from Councilmember Scottsfield, Mr. Fugate summarized the DDA physical year 14 budget. He stated that about half of the $750,000 annual budget was from local public funds. In addition, he, pardon me, in response to a question from Council Member Scottsfield, Mr. Fugate discussed the relationship with and the differences between the DDA and the Downtown Lexington Corporation. In response to a question from Council Member Scottsfield, Mr. Fugate attempted to describe the typical day of the DDA. Time out. Council Member Scotchfield discussed our concerns about the city allowing the old courthouse to fall into disrepair. Council Member Scotchfield discussed the need for the DDA to be more project-specific regarding the assistance it offers to develop the downtown area. Council Member Myers discussed plans for the DDA to engage in developments throughout the entire county. He also discussed plans to engage the DDA regarding the Gainesway small area process. He also discussed the DDA strategy of driving private investment in neighborhoods. In response, Mr. Fugate discussed DDA efforts to support affordable housing developments throughout the community. Council Member Ellinger discussed the 21C hotel project and the potential for linking that project with the old courthouse development. In response, Mr. Fugate stated that he had similar conversations with the 21C development team and will continue to engage that process. Mr. Fugate discussed the role DDA had regarding the HUD loan to the 21C project. Council Member Ford discussed the DDA priorities. In response to a question from Council Member Ford about suspending the Rupp Arena project, Mr. Fugate stated that the interest in the town branch trail and park is still very high. Councilmember Ford discussed the need for the DDA and the city to concentrate efforts to stabilize the old courthouse. In response, Mr. Fugate stated the DDA will bring specific plans back to the council early this winter. He discussed his immediate short-term and long-term rehabilitation efforts. I always fall all over which we never use. We have shortened that for purposes of brevity. Discuss plans for the courthouse stabilization and the assessment of the facility presented being completed. Councilmember Lane discussed the lack of preventive maintenance at the old courthouse and the lack of planning for the building's reuse. He said it was an iconic building with tremendous importance. In response to a question from Vice Mayor Gordon, Mr. Fugate discussed the long and short-term maintenance and capital needs at the old courthouse. He discussed the physical assessment of the structure. Vice Mayor Gordon discussed the need for community support before the renovation can be realized. Councilmember Kay discussed the problem of deferred maintenance at the courthouse and other public facilities. We're almost there, folks. Councilmember Akers discussed the DDA input into the distillery district project. In response to a question from Councilmember Akers, Mr. Fugate addressed infrastructure improvements needed for the distillery district project. Council Member Lane stated that the old courthouse had tremendous redevelopment potential. He stated that while the facility needed immediate attention and investment in the courthouse would benefit the entire community, he stated that the courthouse had tremendous commercial redevelopment potential. No action was taken on this presentation. The last we heard from the Kentucky World Trade Center, Mr. Edwin Webb, president of the Kentucky World Trade Center, gave the presentation. He discussed the importance of world trade on the Kentucky and specifically the central Kentucky economy. He discussed the mission of the World Trade Center to expand global trade through education, networking, and trade services. Mr. Webb discussed some of the clients of the World Trade Center, as well as services offered by the Kentucky World Trade Center, including the Trade Navigation Services, the International MBA Program available through the U.K. Gatton School, the World Trade Certification Program, the Small Business Trade Readiness Assessment, and the numerous trade missions offered by the Kentucky World Trade Center. Mr. Webb stated the U.S. had a negative trade deficit from 2008 to 2010 of .69 percent, while Kentucky had a positive trade growth of 1.18 percent in the same time period. From 2011 to 2013, it grew in Kentucky by 25.9 percent, while the U.S. grew at a rate of 6.7 percent in the same time period. Mr. Webb stated that exports account for $11.3 billion in gross domestic products, generating $1 billion in state and local taxes in Kentucky. Webb also stated that exports support 125,000 jobs in Kentucky. Council Member Lane discussed the bright forecast for advanced manufacturing needs in the region. Vice Mayor Gordon encouraged the council and administration to identify local businesses that could benefit from assistance from the World Trade Center. No action was taken on that presentation. We also had actually three other issues on the agenda, but we ran out of time. And so I adjourned the meeting at 2.53 p.m. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Next is the Social Services and Community Development Committee Summary by Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. And Council, the Social Services and Community Development Committee met on August 26th. I called the meeting to order at 11.01 a.m. There were nine committee members present, and we also welcomed two council members as guests. The summary was approved on a motion by Council Member Beard and a second of Council Member Akers of our summary on April 22nd. We had three items of business, the first being the Lexington Area Workforce Analysis. We want to thank Billy Peevler of the Business and Education Network for making time to join us that day to present the project scope related to the workforce study of Central Kentucky. She was there in anticipation of the council's consideration of appropriating $50,000 to partially fund the study. The study will focus on effective outcomes, reduction of employment barriers, and mutual benefits for the public and private sector. Again, we provided first reading to that appropriation on August 28th. Several council members had questions. No action was taken. The second item of business was a partner agency outcome process, the year-end report for the fiscal year 14. Commissioner Beth Mills presented the report on behalf of her staff member, Amy Baker, who had visited each agency that we funded that fiscal year at least twice during the fiscal year to discuss program success and observe the program's implementation. Most of the programs were doing quite well. No action was taken there. Finally, we were presented an update by Charlie Lantern, the director of the Office of Homelessness Prevention and Intervention, who provided us with an overview of his efforts in the 90 days since the beginning of his office. He discussed the Housing First model, development of a mental health court, and the transition of partner agency funding for emergency shelter funding from the Department of Social Services. He also spoke of the scope of work that his advisory board will offer him. no action was taken there lastly under items referred to committee Council Member Myers asked that the language for a committee item be amended from previously increasing commitment to partner programming to the amendment of increasing commitment to partner agency funding and that was so done lastly I also asked CAO Hamilton to work with both the departments of social services and the department of planning to propose a reorganization of the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention to the Department of Social Services. The meeting adjourned at 1231. That's my report, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Ford. All right, that allows us now to move to Council Reports. And while I'm asking Council Members to sign on, I will just... I'm sorry, did I miss something? Oh, oh, oh. Yes. Very significant. Tammy. Compensation study policy update. I was ready to go to... Well done. It wouldn't have hurt my feelings. Tammy Walters. Thank you. I am happy to be here this afternoon to talk to you about the policies and procedures to accompany the compensation study. There are three items in your packet. The first one is the presentation that I'm getting ready to cover. and then we hoped it might be helpful to include what a workbook might look like or a handout if we were talking about the policies and then also those how those items translate to some ordinance changes so I'm not going to be covering all of that just the presentation but if you have questions about it we can talk about those as well. Our goal here is transparency. We really want to try to remove the mystery out of some of our processes and have everything really open and easy for people to understand. You may remember that MAG proposed some policies to complement their proposed compensation system. I'm going to give you some comparisons to what they provided versus what we have today. We're going to start by talking about entrance rates. It's the biggest change, but it's really not incredibly drastic. The current way we determine entrance rates, We start with a minimum of the pay grade for the person to the classification they're entering. We conduct a training and experience analysis for the candidate based on their application, analyze that, and then use a formula to calculate a proposed salary. And then we conduct an inversion analysis to make sure that the rate we're going to offer doesn't cause an inversion. And then finally, we end up with a recommended salary. What we're recommending is to start with a minimum of the new range to a calculated rate that I'll talk about in just a moment with a comparison to incumbents in the same classification within that division. So let's take a look at what this looks like. When we have a candidate, we're going to identify the pay grade for the position they're applying. We're going to recognize their experience beyond the minimums. We're going to credit one year for every two year of verifiable experience, one year for every year of education at an accredited institution, and then we're going to cap that combined credit at seven years. The recommended offer then to the candidate could be any amount from the minimum of the range to the calculated rate that we provide. And I've got an example on the next slide. This job classification is an equipment operator senior is an example where the proposed pay grade is 512. The minimum requirements for this position are two years of related experience and 12 years of education. The proposed pay range is $31,827 to $47,740. We're going to use the per year rate based on the 30-year scale for employees in that grade, and that per year rate is $530. Now, we're going to take the candidate's qualifications and subtract the minimums. The candidate has 12 years of verified education and 7 years of related experience. After subtracting the minimums, we have a difference of 5 years of verified experience. and using the formula I just discussed, we would use that two-to-one ratio. So we would take the five years, cut it in half, and end up with two-and-a-half years of verified experience. We would take the two-and-a-half years, multiply it by the per-year rate that we just talked about a second ago, the $530, and we would end up with $1,326. Taking that amount, we would add it to the minimum, and end up with a recommended offer of $33,153. Now, in comparison, when we calculated the rate as we do today, using our current scales, we had a recommended rate of $30,106, just using the education and experience in the formula. However, when we took inversions into account, we were only able to offer the candidate $27,092 to be able to prevent inversions, and that offer was declined by the candidate. Now the next step, the hiring manager, again, would be able to take the recommended offer and compare that to what the people in that classification in their own division are making. They could then make an offer to the candidate anywhere between the minimum of the grade and the offered amount that HR calculated. Now, we'll talk a little bit about an exception process. There may be cases where the hiring manager cannot have a candidate, won't accept that offer, and they could come to or have the discretion to request a greater amount up to the midpoint, which could be approved by the HR director. So that amount would be somewhere between $33,154 and $39,784. In exceptional circumstances, the HR director could recommend and the CAO could approve a starting rate somewhere between the midpoint and the grade maximum. Now, we know that there are going to be times when we have exceptional circumstances, such as a difficult to fill position or exceptional qualifications that are hard to find in candidates. The key to this process is flexibility in attracting top talent while recognizing there's a balance between being fair to our existing employees and getting that top talent in the door. Reclassifications or reallocations occur when, after a study is conducted, it's determined that an employee should be in a new classification or the classification should change in pay grade. The end result of this is, in our current ordinance, a minimum of a 7% increase if the reclassification or reallocation is one pay grade higher, 10% if it's two or more grades higher. There would not be a reduction if, for some reason, the pay grade should be lowered. as a result. Now I'll talk about the new numbers specifically, and you'll see that these proposals are consistent through the remainder of the presentation. We're recommending an increase of 7% if the reclassification or reallocation is one grade higher, an additional 3% if it's two grades higher, and an increase of 2% for each additional grade thereafter, and of course not to exceed the maximum of the assigned range. If an employee should have a result that's a lower grade, again we would ask that they retain their current salary. When employees apply and compete for a position with a higher pay grade or a promotion, currently we consider a minimum increase of 7% for one grade higher, 10% for two or more grades higher, and the appointing authority can approve something beyond those minimums, and we call that the eligibility calculation. We're recommending again an increase of 7% for one grade, 3% for two grades, an additional 3% for a total of 10, for two grades higher, and 2% for each additional grade thereafter. And this is a benefit to employees because we don't currently have a process if it's they promote to three or four or even five grades higher, 10% is still with the ordinance states. this would allow 2% for those additional. There are times when an employee might choose to move to a position that is a lower pay grade or demote. Currently our ordinance is a little bit complicated where if an employee requests a demotion to a position they've held before they go back to the pay rate they were making plus any increases they've attained in the higher grade. If they've not held the position before they go all the way back to the minimum of the grade they're asking to go to and then with any increases that they would have made in their higher grade. We're recommending making that less complicated and that if an employee goes to a position that's one pay grade lower, they get a 7% decrease, an additional decrease of 3% if it's two grades, and then a decrease of 2% for each additional grade thereafter. They would not go below the minimum or above the maximum of the new range they're entering. we currently have an ordinance for transfers where employees can request a transfer to a classification it's the same one they hold somewhere else in government an example would be an administrative specialist in facilities and fleet might want to be placed on the transfer list and maybe could go to a vacant administrative specialist in parks and recreation there's no adjustment in pay when this happens, and we allow hiring managers to choose from the transfer list for each process. We recommend keeping that existing language and then also adding if an employee accepts a position in a new job classification that happens to be the same pay grade in their current job class, there wouldn't be an adjustment in salary. While we call everything acting appointments in government, people use that a lot. There are actually two separate ordinances. One is a temporary appointment and the other is an acting assignment. For temporary appointments, those occur when a vacancy exists in government and they need someone to fill the duties of that position until they can fill it through a hiring process. Our current ordinance says you get a 7% for that appointment if it's one grade higher, 10% if it's two or more, and the temporary appointment doesn't exceed 90 days. We're recommending, again, 7% for one pay grade, an additional 3% for two pay grades, and 2% for each additional grade thereafter, and keeping the 90 days. Again, this is an extended benefit for employees that we don't currently have. It stops at 10 now. An acting assignment, they're less common. They occur actually when an employee is absent from work for an extended period and starts after 15 working days of having that assignment. The same pay options still apply, 7% for one grade, 10% for two or more. And again, we're proposing staying consistent with the 7% for one pay grade, three for two, and two for each additional grade thereafter. Some of the keys to our proposals, really the basis is to stay competitive. We want to use benchmarking to study positions on a rotating schedule. We want to be able to attract key talent with our starting pay while keeping current employees in the forefront. We want to have pay increases, which are the key to retaining our talent. Remaining competitive in the market is also important. So now you have the compensation study and our proposal for policies. This is the complete package, and of course we're recommending that you adopt both of those. I want to thank you so much for your time this afternoon. and I have, that's all the information I have for you if you have any questions. Tammy, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Council Member Farmer, then Council Member Stennett. Wow, that was a lot. So you also included in your packet kind of a rewrite with additional verbiage change from the original legislation. Yes. by way of i guess percentage or what of all the input we got do those changes cover half of those questions more than half i mean we had people who had very specific questions they were asking of us i'm just wondering does the rewrite cover most of those or some of them or how many i think what it does is it allows our policies to come in line with a new compensation system so some things that have been confusing to people are now more clear okay promotions, for example. If someone's promoted, they wait to hear, and they're not sure if they're going to get an eligibility or 7 or 10 or which one is it going to be. So it gives the employees an opportunity to know ahead of time. If I promote to a position that's two pay grades higher or three pay grades higher, here's what I can expect to make in that position. So it makes it very clear and removes the whole black box, you know, I guess perception that's going on. I look forward to the legislation, And if there's any other really pertinent conversation about it, I think we would get good e-mails about it. But thank you for the added time and precision. I appreciate it. Thank you, Council Member Farmer, Council Member Stendon. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for being here and giving us this update on this component of the changes. I know we're going through a lot of changes with the new comp study. So speaking of changes, how are we training staff on the new – are we doing it in-house? Are the consultants training them? I mean, where are we getting our training and getting staff up to speed in HR? I think if the policies are all implemented, then we would absolutely offer training to all employees. We could do a lot of different things, like put articulates on the Internet or intranet so people can go on and look at them. We would conduct training in our classrooms. We can do it through payroll coordinator training. There are a lot of different avenues. But what about HR staff? I mean, how do they know how to implement that? Yeah, that's who I'm talking about. Yeah, we can train everybody, but HR staff. HR staff specifically, we would hold the same. Have they been trained yet on this new? We've talked to a lot of our staff about these proposals just to get input and feedback, as well as some of our HR work groups that we've held with a lot of stakeholders and hiring managers to make sure they feel comfortable with those. So, yes, that would be our first key would be to get with HR staff. Okay, and then you talked about inversions up here about how you try to avoid them. But there are some cases when they may be a good thing. We may be so behind the market that everyone needs to be raised up. So are you all prepared in terms of that flexibility is key to bring those inversions to us with recommendations to raise the whole department? I don't want to make sure it's still an option that this new system doesn't leave that out because there are times that can happen. You're absolutely right, and that is important. I think the benchmarking and continually looking at positions and putting them on a rotation is key there. This is not something that we want just to say, okay, here we go, and now let's stop and wait another 10 or 15 years for another study. We plan to keep this as a living, breathing sort of thing where we continually look at positions and make sure that we're appropriately defined in the market. And who would initiate the JAQ process? Could an individual employee initiate it, or does it have to be a director? They usually go through their chain of command with that. So an employee might say, and the director, or at least the manager, should know that they've been assigning new duties to a position or a person. and once the employee has been doing those significantly different, then yes, they would go and say, I think it's time that we do a JAQ, I'm sorry, that would go through the director and commissioner and then come to HR for study. Okay. And then are we going to have any other information before Thursday night on this comp study before we give second reading to it? I can go into a lot of other questions is what I'm saying. I don't want to do that to you because this was focused merely on the ordinance change in some of the hiring practices, not on actually the comp study itself. I don't know if our CAO, because we talked about appeals process. I haven't heard anything. I know we got an email, but the employees haven't heard anything. We haven't discussed it up here. Unless you want to wait until Thursday night, we can discuss it then. And also any other changes coming on the comp study. We had two things. You saw the comp study, and then we wanted you to see it function as a whole, and that's what our presentation was today. And then the third thing that the council had asked for was the appeals process, which we called the administrative review process. We sent that out to everybody. I don't think, John, we had feedback, but if that means that we are in agreement, then we are ready to initiate that administrative review process. And would that be something that we need to have a discussion or a workshop before Thursday night? if we have questions on it, or would you prefer us hand out the email? I prefer, if we could, for you to just respond back to email, and we'll see if we can work those answers in. And if they are still an issue on Thursday, then we could discuss those. And would that be part of the ordinance change that we'll be voting on Thursday, or would this be something separate? I'm going to ask the attorneys. I've done about as much ordinance as I know how to do. I just didn't know if it was going to be in writing, or is this going to be a policy with this administration? That's a good question. Heaven forbid, if you're not here, then the new administration changes it. I'd like to have something a little more in line that we can follow consistently. And you can talk about it. You don't have to answer today. I know that's why I'm asking. It's not. Her answer was it is not an ordinance. since it's not been, but it certainly can be, if it makes the council and the employees more confident and assured, we can do that. Okay, fair enough. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Stanton. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Tammy, for your presentation. Can you go back to the slide that talks about the entrance rate calculation example? Sure. And particularly the 30-year calculation. that line that says the per year rate based on a 30-year scale, equivalent to 530. Can you overview that for me again? Absolutely. That calculation comes about because it mirrors the calculation that put employees into the new system. So we felt it would make most sense to place new and incoming employees into the system the same way. So if you recall from the study itself, there were two different adjustment potential items. One was if the employee wasn't being brought to the new grade minimum, and then the other was placement into the range. If they should happen to have a salary that's below that calculated rate, they would be brought up to that. Okay. And so this mirrors that in that we would bring new employees in using that same calculation with a cap of seven years. And the 530. I may be missing the math. I apologize. Help me with the calculation there. And you might remember we have all along been calling it a per day rate. Right. So in John's presentation before there was a per day rate of $1.43. Right. This just annualizes that. Okay. So for this particular range, you take, well, for any of them, you take the maximum, subtract the minimum, divide by the number of days there are in 30 years, and you get a per-day rate. Well, then we've just taken that and annualized that just for simplicity. Right. And then, Tammy, thank you for that clarification. Then lastly, is the 30 years, is that going to be our standard? I know that there was some question in regards to cost impact if we were to adjust that, understanding that you don't have to necessarily, in our system, work through 30 years in order to reach full retirement. Has that been fully decided or vetted? I think that as part of the compensation study, the 30 years is what was presented there, and that to keep it consistent was important to keep it here as well. It doesn't really necessarily correlate with the number of years we have to work toward retirement. It's just for placement, for calculation to be placed into the system. Thanks, Tammy. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Ford. Councilman Massadi. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Hamilton. Do you mind? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Sally. Just for clarification, you've got the appeals process, which you had sent to us, and then as far as the grievance process, if someone was unhappy with their classification or something, would that be one and the same? This is what I sent you all. was an appeals process for a grade change, which is different. And I want to make that clear because I don't want to mislead you here. There may be other things that people would want. Perhaps they didn't like their classification or they didn't think it was calculated correctly or so. This is basically for a grade appeal. And the reason that it was limited there was to try to at least have the control group in a reasonable number that we could deal with. I mean, people appealing. We've had a lot of people who have talked about their specific grades not being good, and that's what we thought we needed to look at. Okay, so it is different then. It's that way, and I think that's an excellent question, and thank you for clarifying that. Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. I am right on that. You are, and I can add that. I can add that we have been speaking with employees on an individual basis who've had those questions about, I don't think my salary is correct or it should be higher. So we have been meeting with employees and addressing those issues all along. And have they been pretty much rectified? Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. I think we're misleading. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I think we're misleading that. Those have not been rectified. I mean, we have had a couple of those. Excuse me, Tammy. You said exactly what, but I think the question was different. We have had people that talk to us about, I don't think my grade, I don't think my things were calculated correctly. and we have spoken to every one of those people, but we have not changed that. And I think that was your question. That's my question, correct. And that is not, we have not rectified to their satisfaction. What we have done is we had some in engineering, I think it was, that we put back and we have rectified and we republished on this. I know we had received some emails, but there's others that we have received. I'm just wondering if they have been rectified or not. No, they have not, and that's why I did not want that statement to stand. Could you maybe define what rectified means? Does that mean make an adjustment? Does that mean make an adjustment? I am determined. I'm going to let them, but what I didn't want you to think that we meant by rectified was they were satisfied and we changed their salary. That was not what happened. What happened was each one of those were gone over. and there were explanations given back to those individuals. I am sure those individuals still, they got their explanation, but I doubt if they were happy. They're happy. Okay. So when I say rectify in what you, I thought you asked me, and I think that is what you asked me. So there was an opportunity for them to discuss with you, and the opportunity for you to resolve it in their favor or, you know, resolve it that you felt was fair. Yes, we have identified every, we have talked to every one of those. I haven't personally, but they have. Okay. And we have got some other things that we will continue to look at in this whole appeals administrative review process. I just want to make sure that they always have the avenue to come to your office and be able to discuss this if they feel they've been aggrieved in pay or grade or whatever classification. That's my concern. Okay. And I hope I answered your question correctly. You did. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Massadi. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a question on, instead of reviewing this, this is the first time I've really seen this in detail. Well, does this plan cover every employee, or is it only new hires, people that are moved from one classification to another, or temporary assignments, or a reclassification? And this is sort of special cases where this would apply, or does this apply across the board to every employee, assuming that one of these four events would happen? What we try to do is cover any instance where an employee's classification or grade might change and what might happen to their pay as a result. So, yes, any classified or unclassified civil service as they promote, demote, transfer, it should apply to anyone, with the exception of seasonal or potential. So this is giving management an opportunity to make an adjustment in the pay rate in order to recruit somebody we need to raise the pay to an acceptable level. How does it apply across the board? If you're already an employee and, you know, you get an increase based on longevity or, you know, the council votes in a pay increase or maybe you have additional education or something, get moved up in the pay scale. Is this all comprehensive in this one ordinance, or are there more than one ordinances that apply to payroll? Across the board, increases would be a separate ordinance. Things like performance management might be a separate ordinance, and those are things that we're looking at down the road. so those are not addressed here that would be you're correct that would be a payroll change that is not addressed in these ordinances that's what i worry about is having too many different ordinances that you can apply one here one there but they start doubling up on each other and some of it gets out of control do you feel like this plan is going to be not in a mode where it would escalate our payroll costs out of control? No, I think that actually it makes it more manageable because you know the percentage of change an employee will have if they move. So you could budget for that even if you would know what the vacancy would cost and what it would cost for someone to fill it. Okay. Well, I guess that's a pretty good answer. I guess we'll just have to try it out and see how it works. Most of the payroll assistance we've had here haven't been that good, so maybe this will be the star in the arena. This will be the best thing we've ever done. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Ms. Walters, for coming in today. If you go back to your third page. I'm sorry. Tell me when to stop. Back one. Oops. There you go. Okay. So part of the concern that I've heard raised is that when you look at our application process, when you're just coming on board, the second bullet there, recognized experience beyond the minimums. Could we maybe look at how that's explained on the application so that people really understand that verifiable related experience and then education and accredited institutions? Because if they don't get that right coming in, it really haunts them the rest of their life. their career with the government. And I think that's where, I know when I came on as staff, there are things that in your work experience that you don't think are related because they didn't seem like it would be. Right. But then when I went back later on, they would have been. But it's too late. If it's not on that application day one, it's not going to be changed. And so I think that's an area that we may be able to make some improvement. Absolutely. The circumvent issues down the road. And so we might just look at the language on there so that people really fully understand how important it is to be thorough with that part yes absolutely thank you very much thank you mayor all right thank you tammy thanks very much that looks like any further comments or questions all right thank you tammy all right that allows us to move on now to uh wait a minute hold on have some conferring going on here there's a question related to councilmember farmer should this be re-docketed now that it's been rewritten where's the yeah glinda There is a draft ordinance that was in the packet that will make all of the changes that Tamey presented to you all. So once you're ready to move that to the docket, we can put that in final form. I would so move. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer. And a second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Council Member Henson. Well, Glenda, you mentioned that the appeals process wasn't in the ordinance, but that it could be. Correct. So I would amend the motion to include the appeals process in the ordinance. Second. I can do that. Motion by Council Member Hanson and second by Council Member Massadi. Is there any discussion on the motion? Do you all want to see that before Thursday? Well, you have the whole thing. Do you want me to just add that part to it and just send you that? Okay. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Council Member Farmer. So would you just send that to us? This is a separate piece. If that's okay, yes. I think it's great. It just shows us the difference between what we're docketing and now what we're adding, all of which we just need to have a look at. Okay, I can do that. Thank you. All right. Okay, we can take a vote on the motion now. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. All right. So we got the vote on that, right? We're covered. All right. Okay, great. All right. As amended. We need to vote on that. The motion as amended. The motion, we had a motion and a second. All right, now let's vote on the motion as amended. All in favor of the motion as amended, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. And opposed, no. All right, the motion carries. Thank you. And now we can go on to council reports. Before we do go on to council reports, I just, while council members are signing up, I'm sure that other council members will have some comments about the Fairfield N incident. and the extraordinary efforts of our first responders and also the heroic efforts by the management, especially the assistant manager, Debbie Tyler, there. What could have been really tragic was avoided by the really extraordinary efforts of so many. So now we can move on to council reports. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mayor. And I think we're a community that's very fortunate that that incident wasn't as bad as it possibly could. And we're thankful for those guys that responded. Mayor, I have several things I like to do in my five-minute allotment. The first one would be to ask the councils, okay, if I can go back up to the neighborhood development funds, I need to amend that. I didn't speak up quite in time, Mayor. So I'll make a motion to amend the NDF listing for this Thursday, September 11th, to include an allocation to the Robert H. Williams Cultural Center in the amount of $1,300 for needed tree removal. So moved. All right. Motion by Council Member Ford and second by Council Member Myers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, then we can vote. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. Just a few very quick highlights. It's been a pretty busy time throughout our district. This past Thursday, the Bluegrass Community and Technical College in Newtown Campus had a pretty festive event with the celebration of both its 75th anniversary and the dedication of its new classroom building. Mayor Gray and I were fortunate to sit on the platform, and I know Council Member Kane, Council Member Clark, I believe, attended, as did most of our Fayette County legislative delegation and Governor Beshear, and really excited about what that campus is going to grow into in the next few years. On Friday, I came down the street, West 4th Street, over to Transylvania University to join their community in groundbreaking for new residence halls there on campus. and I believe that the council is supporting their efforts with some bonding opportunities that we have on the docket as we speak and also want to welcome their new president, Dr. Carey, to town. The Roots and Heritage Festival, I think, was a big success again this weekend and I want to thank all the many volunteers and particularly our local government for the in-kind services that they provide to make that area safe and clean throughout the festival. coming to Monday. I was not able to attend, but Mayor, I want to congratulate the administration and this government and particularly our support of Health First Bluegrass, which is our primary care outfit, which is slowly growing into its independence from our health department and the groundbreaking over, I guess, in Council Member Clark in your district over on Southland Drive. There's so many folks to thank for that, but here in government, I want to thank Jeff Reed working with the mayor's office. It's much smoother sailing now than it was, but for folks who may not recall, that grant of $11.7 million was in jeopardy at some point in time, and we've done quite a great deal to stabilize that, and that's going to be a great resource in that side of town. And then lastly, Mayor, wrapping up my report, of course I serve as the council's representative to the Board of Health, and we had a meeting last night, and we moved to recommend that our local government consider revising our smoke-free ordinance, our indoor smoking ban, to include e-cigarettes. We had a report from UK that talked about it. Of course, Lexington was the first city in the state to pass that legislation. The governor made a big announcement himself after he left BCTC on Thursday in regards to state facilities and promoting that health. But there are six cities now that have already included these cigarettes into their smoke-free ordinance, only by way that they passed their ordinance at a later time. When we passed ours, e-cigarettes was not a factor. So there will be communication from the Board of Health coming over here to our government, and we look forward to reviewing the ordinance now and seeing how we can improve it. Mayor, thanks for allowing my report. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to briefly mention, I think most council members are aware, probably isn't, I had the opportunity to be part of a four-person delegation that went to Copenhagen, Denmark, for five days on a study tour that was sponsored by the Knight Foundation. As, again, some people may be aware, Lexington is one of 18 cities where the Knight Foundation used to have newspapers, and they support these cities in many different ways. The most visible way in which they have supported Lexington is the Legacy Trail, but there's many other things they've done in the city. The Knight Foundation sponsored this study tour. They made an open competition for the 18 cities that are Knight cities around the country, and they chose four to send full four-person delegations. Lexington was one of those four. The Bluegrass Community Foundation put that application in. The focus of all this was on livable cities. So Copenhagen, one of the most, I think, astounding figures that we heard in the five days is that 52% of the people who live within a three-mile radius of the center of that town commute to work or study on bicycles, 52%. So they have a very big city, and they don't have the kind of traffic problem we have because they have people on bikes. They go all the time in all weather. They put us on bikes. We went from the hotel to the conference center on bikes. One day it poured on us. People did not stop. Bicycles were in the rain. They had some shots of people bicycling in the snow. And they also focus on basically repurposing their public spaces. So it has an incredibly vibrant central city. That is the beginning, we suspect. Night was not very specific about this, but they did not invite a lot of people to Copenhagen just for fun. We believe from things that they've said, they're starting a major initiative on livable cities, including an initial $1 million competition for cities to get technical assistance and support for bikeways, pedways, and conversion of public space to more public use. So we'll be hearing more about that, I believe, in the future, and I'll be sending some more specific information to Council, but I wanted to briefly report today on that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Kay. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to share a neighborhood association meeting happening tonight in Metathorpe at 7 o'clock at the Louis Mack Community Center. That is at 333 Larch Lane. They will have refreshments and visiting at 630 for anyone who would like to attend. And then tomorrow night, very exciting, on Jefferson Street, they're going to have a soiree from 6 to 10 p.m., the first annual event. It is sponsored by Keeneland and the Lexington Convention Visitors Bureau. It will be held from 6 to 10 p.m. to highlight restaurants and businesses along the Jefferson Street corridor and the revitalization of that area. So, again, from 6 to 10, there will be live music on stage in the parking lot next to the Gray Goose. And then there will be food and beverage samplings along the street. So they're going to block off the street as well between short and second, between 6 and 10. And so anyone driving in that area or living in that area, keep that in mind as well. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Records. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Mayor. I would also like to mention the groundbreaking at Health First on South and Drive. It has a checkered past, as everyone knows, and I thank the mayor and others that have made that work, and also particularly Dr. Steve Davis, who has been instrumental in bringing that all together. That's looking good, and I think we're in good shape there. I'd also like to mention also in my district, as has already been mentioned, the explosion of the Fairfield Inn, quite remarkable, just quite remarkable that no one was injured in that explosion. And it's not only in my district, but very close to my house. And so we're very proud of the folks who made that work. I'd also like to mention that I think the dedication of BCTC was an occasion I think we ought to be very proud of. The swap of land and facilities to make that happen was really quite a remarkable movement by the city and the state and the university. and I think we can be very proud of what's happening there. I think it has an incredible impact on this city, and the future of BCTC in creating the job process and educating our folks is going to have long-term effect, I believe. One other thing very quickly. As the Southland bike lane project continues, we're hoping that at the end of that process, We can have a major celebration along Southland Drive, including a bike caravan of some kind to simply reinforce the idea that we have new bike lanes there. It's going to be very exciting. It goes into keeping with my efforts on Bike the 10th, which we are trying to get lots of people on bicycles in the district. So thank you, Mayor, very much. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of three things, but first I wanted to ask if there was some sort of a, we did not have a workshop today about CenterPoint. Is there a follow-up or some work product we could have an informational time about? Kevin Atkins to speak to that. Welcome, sir. Council Member Farmer, we were approached by the developer's team last week about an alternative to what we have been discussing here. The reason we're not having the workshop is we're still getting together the documents, doing the due diligence behind the scenes. The developer, like I said, is the one that brought this alternative to us, so we're exploring that, and we hope to be back with you all shortly on just the specifics of that proposal. So like two days shortly or a week shortly? Not that shortly, but we want to make sure we've got our facts. The developer wants to make sure all the information that has been requested is in, and then we will get it back to you. So this represents a different avenue than what's been explored before? It is a new alternative, yes. I'm appreciative of the potential conversation. Mr. Turner, do you care to leaven the conversation yourself? yes I mean I agree with everything Kevin said although we hope to be here sooner rather than later understand even this later this week we'll see very good I appreciate both your all's time thank you thank you let's see briefly all right this is something that I know we handed a copy of this to councilmember Henson I would like to propose to place the Public Safety Committee a review of ordinance 13-54 secondhand and junk dealers specifically 13.54.3 which pertains to the administrative requirements of scrap metal dealers to look at applications currently in krs 186.215 and 295 there's some question that the current application of such prohibits local businesses based on outdated values associated with junk or hulk vehicles and recent enforcement of the KRS on the local level has raised concern that business will be shifted out of the county. So I would like to move a review of this into the Public Safety Committee, so moved. Motion by Council Member Farmer, seconded by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, I'm hearing none. We can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. I highlighted and made kind comments about Commissioner Reed and the work that's ongoing to update the speaker system here in the chamber. However, if you're here today and you're setting up here, you're listening to a very high-pitched whine that's been driving me nuts for about three hours. I believe from talking with our electronic staff that it may have to do with the bulbs in some of these perhaps not brand-new fixtures. And I would, you know, I don't think it needs to be a motion from the council to change the light bulbs. But if it would take the wine away, I think we might dispense our duties better if we don't have to listen to that. It could be age and hearing then because I'm not noticing it. Are you noticing it? Well, so some do. There's a little. But I believe. If there's a simple answer, I think we should. I know it's not an open mic. We ruled that out. So the only other thing that would vibrate at that level. If you've asked for it to be examined, then I'm sure you do. That's plenty. I just, you know, sanity can be so fleeting. There we go. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. All right. Any other council members wish to make a report? All right. If not, then that allows us to move on to the mayor's report. Is there a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Farmer and second by Council Member Akers. Is there any discussion? All right, hearing none, then we can take a vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. And next is public comment for issues not on the agenda. Donnie, anybody signed up? No. All righty. Thank you. Well, if there's no further business, unless there is objection, I'll declare the meeting adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.