# Special Budget Committee of the Whole - November 13, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 13, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3510 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3510?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-11-13 - **Last revised**: November 13, 2014 - **Length**: 24,771 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 Special Budget Committee of the Whole convened on November 13, 2014, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber. The meeting focused on a single agenda item regarding FY14 Fund Balance Discussion, which was handled as an informational session. No formal votes were taken during this special committee meeting, and no public comments were heard. The session served as a discussion forum for committee members to review and analyze the fiscal year 2014 fund balance information without requiring formal action items or public input. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several significant budget appropriations totaling $1,173,000 across multiple city departments and community organizations. The largest single appropriation was $450,000 allocated for the Old Fayette County Courthouse Schematic Design project. This funding will support the design phase for renovations or improvements to the historic courthouse facility. Community organizations received substantial support through two major allocations. The YMCA was awarded $253,000 in funding, while the Community Inn received $200,000 for retrofit improvements to their facility. Infrastructure and beautification projects received combined funding of $170,000. This included $70,000 for Corridors Landscaping Clean-Up and Maintenance and $100,000 for Corridors Beautification and Breeders Cup Preparation activities. These appropriations appear designed to enhance the city's appearance and maintain landscaping along major transportation corridors. Public safety funding was addressed through a $100,000 appropriation for Police Overtime to the Division of Police. This allocation will help cover additional staffing costs and overtime expenses for law enforcement operations. All appropriations were structured as budget allocations to support various city operations, community partnerships, and capital improvement projects. The funding covers a diverse range of municipal priorities including historic preservation, community services, public safety, and infrastructure maintenance. The total financial commitment of $1,173,000 represents significant investment across multiple sectors of city operations and community support services during this budget cycle. ## FY14 Fund Balance Discussion The meeting included a discussion regarding the allocation of the fiscal year 2014 fund balance. This agenda item focused on reviewing various projects and appropriations that could be funded using the available surplus funds from the previous fiscal year. The discussion was informational in nature, with participants reviewing potential uses for the FY14 fund balance. The conversation covered various projects and appropriations that were being considered for funding through these surplus funds. No specific outcome or decisions were recorded for this agenda item, as it served as a discussion forum for reviewing options and gathering input on potential allocations of the available fund balance. *Note: Specific details about speakers, amounts discussed, or particular projects mentioned were not available in the provided meeting materials. Transcript timestamps were not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Full transcript Wait for the day, wait for the day, courage to say Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End Thank you. Convene our meeting. Today is November 13th already, 2014, and this is the Special Budget Committee of the Whole. And our one topic is fund balance, fiscal year 14 fund balance discussion. and I guess the first thing I'd like to do is ask Mr. Schoeniger if he would walk us through this packet so everybody understands exactly what we have in here, plus you've received a copy of the page from the fund balance information from our last budget meeting. So would you mind to walk us through the packet to describe the first three pages are items that the council members either individual or collectively have last spring had asked to be considered at this point in time they are not prioritized however the first item the YMCA the contribution of the YMCA there was a motion made to put that as the first item when you guys can have this consideration the next four items items two through five were approved in concept by the council at the during the during the budget deliberations in the spring and then after that item six through six through eight were from links and then six or six through eight were from links nine had three council members that were had had requested that and then and then items 10 through I think it's sort of 41 10 through 38 were individual councilmember requests none of these are prioritized and then the 39 through 41 these are three items from a recent environmental quality committee meeting the page five is the unassigned fund balance cut this is a calculation that that the Department of Finance put together I think you saw this in the in the last in the last budget cow meeting he of finance attempted to quantify or to come to identify where the 4.1 million dollars of unassigned fund balance was going to and then page 6 and page 7 these are items that were that the council approved for in FY 13 is fund balance projects miss Maynard and I met with the vice mayor earlier this week or I guess was last week to talk about these my concern is I expressed to the vice mayor was that some of these projects had had been a little had the council and allocated money to but very little had happened yet so I was concerned about capacity if you're adding projects in FY 14 that that already in FY 13 the council I didn't they said the administration hadn't completed or had started on page six these are projects that are by and large haven't been started but approved last year at this time and then on page 7 these are projects that are are complete are pretty pretty close to being complete from FY 13 fund balance and then page 8 through 10 this is again the same list of these are park projects miss Maynard had asked Commissioner Reed to opine on the capacity for parks to do some of the projects that you folks have have expressed interest in and then on page 13 and 14 this is a memo from CIO Hamilton a part of the administration's request including a couple things that council had already it indicated they were interested in funding the first four are already on your list the ymca the firehouse the fire station location study and the two quarter maintenance and beautification projects and then one two and three the old old fayette county courthouse schemat design the community in project and police overtime are three new projects that the administration has asked you to consider if there are any questions and i'm sorry and then the last page one of the one of the items on the fund balance list was repaving and i'm just providing some information on the on the map fund balance since that would be an eligible activity from the from the map fund as well so So that's page 15. Thank you so much. And if there are any questions, I'll come to address them. Yes, thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I also wanted to point out to council members on the pages 1, 2, and 3, the list which we saw when we were having our budget deliberations. I also asked for our staff to mark which of those, since our fund balance is a one-time amount of money, which of those are one-time expenditures and which would be recurrent involve recurring costs so you can see that in the column on the right so we have a couple questions about what's in the packet council member k thank you vice mayor on the uh i can't figure out page seven or six anyway with the fund balance projects from fiscal year 13 that have not been the action hasn't been taken on them what does that mean about the bottom line for the fund balance available to us today does that mean that those funds have been or have not been accounted for maybe mr american answer that question yeah all of page six none of those are started yeah i know i do too welcome commissioner Good afternoon. Council Member Kay, these projects have already been reserved. If you remember when we talked about our fund balance, we had, I think it was $8.1 million at the end of June 30 of projects that the council had either approved at this time last year or in our March meeting where we allocated cash funds to be used. And so these dollars are already in the reserve fund balance. I don't think I'm using the proper term, but they've already been accounted for before you come up to the 2.2 New or the 4.1 on a set that answers my question They're already taking accounted for in the preceding budget. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome Councilmember Farmer And vice mayor this is kind of to you on item 38 which is on page three This is I'm I placed on this list that the the bid on the senior citizen center has obviated the need for this So if I would remove it or ask for a motion to remove it. Excellent. I give you a motion to remove, so moved. Second. All right. We have a motion to and second to remove number 38 on page 3. Is there any discussion about that? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Number 38 is removed. Thank you, ma'am. You're welcome. Now, questions. Council Member Scutchfield. These are questions on what's in the packet. Okay. Well, I guess my question is, I guess, in the packet, but what's lacking in the packet? I know I made an email request to add two things to the list. One of the things that I guess concerns me about this list, too, is these were all things that council members wish to have included in the budget. And in previous years, we have not done it that way. we have discussed budget items and then come forward and created a list, ranking that list for budget surplus only. So I feel like this kind of, I'm not sure we're doing it the way that makes the most sense at this point. Do you remember the council didn't want to rank a list? I brought that up and the council said no, we don't want a ranked list. And that's fine with me, I guess. This budget list was a budget list. This was not a budget surplus list. I have no problem, obviously, with items that persons would like to have included on it, but we have not been able to make our budget surplus list, particularly to our districts. But I would like to make a motion when it's appropriate to add my two items to the request. request. If my memory serves me correct, the council used this list in the spring to say, we approve a few of these in concept and the rest need to go forward. We did not want to leave these, you know, just X them out. It was my understanding that the council wanted to see these back in the fund balance discussion. I believe you're right that we said- They may not have voted on the whole list. We agreed to put them onto the fund balance list, but I don't think we've gone to the fund balance request specifically to each district. So I know some of the council members may have additional requests as well as myself. I did not do that because there's $9 million worth of requests on here. I mean, that's, you know. Well, and I guess it was requests from council members at budget time, and a lot of people shot for the moon, and I think we do need to definitely take a look at priorities at some point. I agree. And I think there is a place to hear for ones that, like you have a couple you want to bring up. Correct. Yeah. All right, thank you. Very good. Yep. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. There's a couple that I'd like to remove from the list. Okay. item number 32 chillato playground replacement for three hundred thousand dollars that item needs to be removed that's going to be taken up at a different time and number in number 33 right underneath it the south point park parking lot security lighting number 32 and 33 correct is there any discussion on that okay all those in favor please say aye anyone opposed okay that motion passes to remove 32 and 33 and did you have anything else no ma'am council member ellinger thank you vice mayor i guess what i'd like to do is kind of get a starting point to where we what we have because i think there's kind of a discrepancy between the administration and the council on what our fund balance is and what we can spend. I guess we'd ask Commissioner to come up here and just kind of go through again, and this would be on our preliminary fund balance discussion, and just look at the numbers that we actually have. Can we do that in just a second? We can do it whenever. I just wanted to kind of set where the bar is going to be and then work our way backwards from that, because I know there's some discrepancies on what we think it is and what the administration thinks of this. Yes, that's our next step. I wanted to find out if anybody else had questions. Council Member Stenet, was yours on what's in the packet? Yes, ma'am. Okay, very good. You're on. I would like to make a motion to remove item number nine. I believe we did accomplish this in the budget. My name used to be attached to that, but I'm not sure how it's missing. But unless those other council members want to keep it, I would make a motion to remove it at this point. Okay, so motion to remove and a second to remove number nine. Any questions or discussion? We did five million in the budget. Yes, this is the time to speak to the motion. Council Member Farmer. I guess to be clear, we chose not to issue $5 million in bonds, but we did do $5 million in paving money within the budget framework. Correct. I understand and agree. Thank you. Thank you. any other discussion of this motion? Okay, all those in favor of eliminating number nine, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, number nine is struck. Were there, let's see, Council Member Akers, did you have a question about the packet? Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. On number 15, it's really just a, I guess, clerical correction. It's correct under the item description. um there's this project the trail walking trail in highlands park could be done in two phases or if they were done as one project it would be 78,200 so the amount in the right column is not correct at 130 so that should be at the most 78,002 or we could phase it at 44.9 for phase one Okay. But definitely not 130. Okay. So the amount of 130, phase one is how much? 44, nine. And phase two is? 78. Okay. 36, five. I'll make a motion to amend that down to 78,000. Perfect. Okay. Second. The motion in second is to amend number 15, the amount column to say 78,000. Any? 78, two. 78, two. I'll just go. Are there any questions or discussion on the motion? Okay, I see none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? So that's 78,000. Was that all? Council Member Akers. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to move that we remove number 19 and 20 since we have so much in parks. Those were my suggestions based on discussion with parks. I think at this point we could eliminate those right now. So the motion in second is to remove numbers 19 and 20. Is there any discussion on that motion? council member scutchfield i have no idea okay any other questions or discussion all right i see none so all those in favor of removing 19 and 20 say aye anybody opposed All right, that motion passes. So we have removed number 9, 19, 20, 32, 33, 38. Okay, Council Member Beard, did you have another one? item number 27 which is the Zandale Park Bridge project I'm not totally clear when that is supposed to happen and just something from someone who might be able to give me some info on on that it could change my mind, I guess. So, Commissioner Reed, do you know the answer? And, of course, it can't happen without the money, right? But number 27, do you have any insight into welcome? We have worked, the parks has worked on the drawings and are in a position, if we had the money, that the project could begin, but again, need the additional funding. We're in a position we've done some of the preliminary background work. Is that correct? And what is the additional money, Commissioner? In amount, I guess. Let me get Brad, who's been working on this project from our staff. Thank you. Brad Biltner, who is one of our people. Brad Biltner. Biltner, planning and design. Oh, yes. Thank you. Yes, welcome. I've said it in a lot of ways, but he's with us. I've heard it a lot of ways. It's okay. Welcome. Thank you. With the drawings are finished. We've had the construction drawings worked out, the engineering, the architecture of the bridge. The stream restoration project has been finished, and at this point what's remaining is the construction portion and some signage, which is going to be some interpretive signage to talk about the stream restoration project. At this point we don't have a begin date, a start date on the remaining elements, but that's really all that's left to be done. Well, this says $18,000 to $24,000. The money will be for the renovations to the bridge, construction portion of the bridge, and the signage. So is that going to be $18,000 or is that going to be $24,000, I guess is the question. Yeah, I see there's a range there. I'm not sure why there's a range. We'll do it for 18. In other words, it's a dartboard right now. Excuse me. This was some. Yeah, I'm anxious to see this happen, but I wanted it to happen right. And I, you know. Yeah, to be totally honest with you, it's not one of my direct projects, and I'm not sure why there's a range for the money. but as Commissioner Reed just said, the $18,000, we can work with that. Well, I'm going to suggest that we put it in at $24,000, and then we'll go from there. Yes. Okay. On number 27, the motion is to put the number at 24,000. Is there any discussion of the motion? I see none. Are those of you logged in to speak to the motion? No. Okay. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So we'll change number 27 to 24,000. Thank you very much, Brad Billeter and Commissioner. Councilmember Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was looking at item six, and this was placed on the list by the public safety link. And so I would motion to remove it. I don't see that there's a need for it. Okay. We have a motion. This is November. A motion and a second by Council Member Farmer to remove six. Correct? Correct. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? You know, if that motion passes, if we keep this up, we won't have anything to discuss. So let's just keep going here. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Regarding number 23, I'd like to take that number down from 365 down to 243,000. 243? Yes, ma'am. So moved. Okay. Okay. And can you give us a little, is that to do the bathrooms and concessions but not the pro shop, or what is that? The concession and pro shop won't be there. Okay. Just the bathrooms? Yes, ma'am. All right. So that number changes to 243. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. We have a, that passes. Anything else about the packet, the information? Do you want to remove some more items? Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Following along Council Member Henson's line of thinking, number eight involves a position, a new position, and would be a recurring cost, as well as number 14. and my understanding is that we can only use it for one-time costs. And so I think we should. I mean, I think that's the guidance that I don't want to speak for the commissioner, but the guidance we're usually given. But I don't think there's a rule that says that. But the guidance is it's one-time money, so one-time expenditures are appropriate. Make a motion to remove number eight first. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there discussion? And that was a link recommendation. Council Member Clark, that was our link, I believe, wasn't it? It was, but I agree that since it is a recurring expenditure, that probably doesn't belong here under the circumstances. Okay. But we also need to keep that in mind when we're talking about budget for 2016. Very good. I agree. Very good. Any other discussion on the motion? All right. All those in favor of removing number eight, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Council Member Farmer. Vice Mayor, would it be out of order just to run through these, just the recurring ones to see if we want to knock them out? I think that's a lovely idea. Do you mean knock them out as in take them off the list? Out of consideration. Oh, okay. Yes, and so we have left, that's a great idea, number seven. I need to speak to number seven. Okay. It needs to be the exception to the rule I'm trying to say. So sorry, Vice Mayor. Uh-huh. Did we get that on the record? I know there are people here that could speak to this, Vice Mayor, that we have an ongoing hazardous tree problem that we currently don't budget enough for. I would just leave it in at this point. The council may not sanction it, but I don't think we should rob it of the opportunity of the conversation. It's a little different from positions. Yes, ma'am. Because it could be something that varied in amount, correct? It could, but it's also something that hazardous trees are everywhere. They just become hazardous immediately, and we have to do something about them. So I would just leave it on for consideration, just not take it out. And if you move to the bottom of the page, number 12. Sure, yes, I'm sorry. This is as to whether to leave it on or take it off. So who would like to speak to that? Councilmember Stennett? Thank you, Vice Mayor. On number 7, isn't it covered under the one we just put on there, under number 39? and maybe Susan can tell us the difference but we have tree removal and County Road assistance at 80,000 could that not be part of this as well and as we do the next year's budget included 35,000 that might be the better one well it's really different and that number seven is urban service area and number 39 is the rural area so if you had to pick one which one would you want to give up well do you want me to answer that no no well me which ones of them importance. I mean, we can't fund everything on this list. Both. Or both. Or both. Which one's more critical to our mission that we talked about two weeks ago? Well, number 39 relates to the rural road maintenance, county road maintenance, which ties into the reorganization. So that relates to trees, encroaching honeysuckle, et cetera, on rural roads. Number seven relates to extending the cost share program for the urban street tree replacement, which we have now expended about 95 percent we've done about 85 trees so they're really two different things even though they both relate to trees and how much have you expended so far we have allocated about seventy thousand dollars so how much further will this 35 get us about uh well 10 trees it would give us 50 percent more capacity than we had in the first time so yeah another 40 trees All right. Very good. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. You're welcome. Council Member Clark, is this to the item seven? Yes, it is. Okay. And I would like to speak strongly about that because these are two completely different programs. And seven is a result of the fact that we did cut that in the budget somewhat. And this is a very, very important program. I mean, we need to give it very serious consideration, as we should 39, because it's part of the whole development of the program. Thank you. You want to keep them on the list. Councilmember Henson, did you want to speak to number 7? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted some clarification as to why 7 would be reoccurring. and I believe, okay, and number 39 is as well, but I would look at a reoccurring cost as something similar to a personnel. And so I would argue, I guess, we could take this out of the budget if we chose to do so next year, which would lead me to believe that it's not necessarily reoccurring. It's a one-time expense. And I do think I agree with Council Member Clark. We seem to be lacking in many areas of these maintenance, and we need to get caught up. And with Susan's help and the right resources, I think we can accomplish that. Thank you. It's a very good point. This could be a one-time expenditure. I think the intent, Mr. Farmer, was to reestablish the fund and fund it every year. Yes, ma'am. but it could be viewed as a one-time expense. That's correct, Vice Mayor. Okay, thank you. All right. Council Member Beard, is this to number seven? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just to further confuse the issue, number 40, which version of corridors are we talking about? Are we talking about the kind that the Corridors Commission had selected and stood on, or is this in the eyes of the beholder and we do what we want to do where we want to do it? The intent of this item was to provide some funding for cleanup, a one-time cleanup of the corridors that needed it the most. prioritized by how much problem we had whether it was falling over trees dead shrubs or other issues so it was a one-time expense and it could be applied to any of the 15 transacting corridors or the or a man-of-war as well but where the highest need was to just do some basic maintenance is Virginia Virginia Avenue Virginia Avenue is not on the corridors I understand it isn't but we're doing work over there. Not with this funding. This funding would be for just basic cleanup, honeysuckle cut back, dead tree removal, dead shrub removal on our corridors as defined by the 15 transecting corridors. That's fine. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's go back to Mr. Farmer, who is leading us through the R's. So that would drop us down to number 12, which is the Council Member Ford's suggestion we pay our dues to the National League of Cities, which I would leave that to the pleasure of the group. He's not here to argue for it. I've been to some NLC things. I haven't been recently. I think we should maybe leave it on for conversation since he is not here. If you go then to the top of page 2, number 14 is the Commonwealth Attorney position, and Council Member Mazzotti is here to speak to it. I'd like to invoke the farmer rule, if I may. Oh, now we have a name. Ray Larson gave a pretty impassioned plea for this position. We've had some dialogue with his office, and if we could, I know it's a recurring expense because it's a personnel item, of course, but maybe if we would consider maybe funding at half, at 50%, I could get Mr. Larson's office to pay for the other half, and we could have this other position. I mean, they desperately need this position. I think all of us can attest to it. You know, we've had recent spikes in burglary and auto thefts, and I put something in your boxes to supplement what I'm saying here, but he needs some help over there. So maybe we can go at a 50% share on this. I'd leave it up to the pleasure of the council. Do you know if he would share the expense? He would. You've already gotten a commitment? Yes. okay any i don't see any other well we've got 39 and 40 recurring that's it so um okay so it yes oh is this for more recurring okay council member stennett well i just had a question for councilman massadi on that 75 000 was that for a year yes yes well you know this is november and this theme is going to go throughout what we're all going to do this afternoon. Do we have enough time to hire someone and get them on board before next budget cycle, before we do the next year's budget? And that could apply to a lot of these things. We're almost halfway through this fiscal year coming up. So do we need 75? Can we do 35 for six months? I think that's fine. And if he splits at 17, five. I mean, I'm just trying to get his down. I don't have an objection to that. Have we talked to him? Can he hire someone? He's got someone on medical leave, so he's got someone, he's got actually half time available, so he could do that. All right, so do you want to amend it to a different number? Because we only have six months technically left, a little over. I guess I'll amend it to $17,500 then. So moved. $37,500. I'm sorry, $37,500. Motion to amend number 14 to $37,500. Correct. Okay, we have a motion and a second to amend 14. This is just amending the number to 37.5. 37.5. All right, discussion on the motion. I see none. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? So that number goes down to 37.5. Okay. Okay. Is there any more discussion just about what is showing on number 14? Council Member Stenner, did you have more questions about that item? Okay. Council Member Clark, were you asking about that? I was actually asking to speak to the number 14, but it was too late. Oh, whoops. Let me say what I was going to say anyhow. Now, even though we reduced the amount, it's still a recurring expense, is it not? Yes, it is. Well, that's what I'm saying. But we are assuming that if we do this... Hang on, we need one person at a time to talk, please. Council Member Clark, you have the floor. I'm assuming that if we do this and we hire somebody, or Ray hires somebody, that we are assuming that it would be a position that would continue. Are we not? It is a recurring expense. It's a position. That's my point. And again, we've already voted on it, so it's moot point. We voted to change the amount of money. Yes. Thank you. Okay. This is just always interesting. Is there any other question about the recurring expense items on this list? If not, we'll go to our, oh, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. After doing some more math here, going back to number 23, we can actually drop that number down to 200 even. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay, the motion is to change 23 to a $200,000 expense. and that is still a bathroom or does it yes did the stall doors go away or what happened no i just made a mistake in my mouth okay all right very good all right any more discussion all those in favor say aye anyone opposed all right that number is now 200,000 Thank you. Okay, now, we're making progress. It may not seem that we are, but we are. So, now, what I had thought we would do is go back to two pages that you have. First is the separate sheet that was in your budget and finance packet at our last meeting. It was at your place here, separate, as well as page five. because this tells us exactly what the fund balance is, and I appreciate that the commissioner's office did page number five to give the detail of this unassigned fund balance of $4.176646 million. So I wonder if Commissioner, is Commissioner still here, O'Mara? Oh, I'm looking right at you. I'm so sorry. Would go ahead and explain this page five for us, and then we'll know exactly what the amount of money is. Did you want to ask a question before this? Yeah, while he's doing that, can Paul or Stacey, can you all give us a new total of the request? Because it's around $4 million now. If you could do that and give us, after this, give you time. Thank you. That's good. Commissioner, would you go through page 5, which reflects on the separate page the very bottom number of 4.1? It's a little bit different, 4.1 million and some. Just so we all understand. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I believe the discussion was to try to show the components of the very last line of fund balance that's reported in the consolidated annual financial statements. And I'm sorry, I did round this. It's 4176, but I was doing it quickly with all zeros. But so we presented and council gave us direction to go forward on the different reserves, on the different categories to report in the CAFR. And upon those different reserves being approved, then the very last number falls out to be how much of the total fund balance is unassigned. And that was the 4.1 and change that is approved and is going to appear in the CAFR per Ural's instructions. I was then asked to show what types of dollars make up that unassigned fund balance. And there's three components. The first is two different things that have came before council as budget amendments or whatever. is grant matches that were committed to in the 2014 budget that had not yet been remitted to the grantor. Is that the correct term? That's $630,000. And then encumbrances, these were open purchase orders that the commitments had been made, but the cash actually hadn't gone out the door. That was approximately $1,350,000. and then part of the adopted FY15 budget is $500,000 of fund balance. That comes up to the $2,480,000. The difference between those which, in my mind, council has committed to, the organization has committed to, the difference between that and the 4.1 or the 4.176 is for unforeseen, unidentified items that would occur throughout the year of FY15. And we've had conversations in the past about what is a comfortable fund balance for an organization our size. My personal opinion is the $45 million range. As a reference, I think I read off during that fund balance discussion, and the range that those have actually been over time, which are listed there at the bottom. Last year, we had an unassigned fund balance of $4.3 million. The year before, it was $3.265. The year before that, it was a little over half a million. 2010 was $2.1, and 2009 was $4.3. So the 4-1, the 4-3 is in line with what we have done in the past and what was recommended. So that's my explanation of the 4.17. Okay, thank you very much. I would ask council members if you have questions about page 5 while the commissioner's at the podium. So just to recap, the top two numbers, the $630,000 for grant match, we have already voted to commit that in the past. Yes, ma'am. And the council likewise has voted to commit the $1.350 million in open purchase orders. That's correct. And those are all expected to be purchased and closed? Yes. Okay. And then council approved in the FY15 budget the half-million-dollar fund balance. Okay. So the $2.48 is already approved by the council and more or less committed? From my perspective. Yes. My perspective. Yes, ma'am. Council member Farmer just about the one line that says additional recommendation 1.620 I was just unsure of that That's the And your question That's the difference between what has already been committed the 2481 and an unassigned fund balance of $4.1 million. It's the difference. We have already committed $248,000, and we've recommended something in the $4.1 range. Council Member Farmer, is your question more toward, is the $1.62 something we've committed, we've voted on and committed to? I'm just trying to see the difference between that and the $2.2 that we're attempting to. Yes. make a recommendation on today. Well, the difference, excuse me. Could you go to the other question? In the financial statements, we voted on, or council, we presented and council endorsed, I don't know quite the correct term here, but agreed to, these balances in defined reserves. one of which is assignments non-recurring of $2.2 million. So that has already been set aside and is published to the public, will be next Tuesday, that the council intends to use this money cash funding one-time only projects. The $2.2 million, you've explained that. Yes. Okay. Where's the 162 on that piece? If you go to the very last number, $4,176,646, pretend that that says $4.1 million. I round it. We have already committed almost $2.5 million. The difference between the committed of $2.5 million and the unassigned balance in the $4 million range, which was my recommendation of where we should be in unassigned, is the difference, the $1,006,000. which would be for unidentified things that happen throughout the year that would need to be budgeted and approved using fund balance. In excess of the 4.1? No, it is part of the 4.1. Okay, you're welcome. Councilmember Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. O'Mara, can we put the other page back up? Sure. And to Council Member Farmer's point, I mean, the 1.6 is in addition to the 500. The council already said we'd leave in fund balance. So really you're looking at 2.1 plus the 2.2 if we wanted to spend it today for those purposes. I'm not saying we should. I'm not advocating for that. But 2.1 and 2.2 is really 4.3 is what we're talking about today. And that's how I see it. And we can spin it to zero. I'm not advocating for that. I'd love to keep it as high as possible for those rainy days. We seem to have a lot of those lately. So that's my take on it. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer, were you finished? Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That 1.62, is that what the administration has given us, a list of things that they want to include? Is that going to be part of that or not? No. So it's just going to be extra for our checking account if we need things in the future? That's correct. It's for unforeseen events throughout FY15. That's it. All right. And that. So where are you pulling the YMCA, the list that we got? Where is that money going to come from then? The 2.2? It's available right now. The assignments, non-recurring uses, recommended 2.2 million. So that list that we have is going to come from that 2.2. And the 1.6, we're supposed to just leave for future? For unforeseen events. Okay. Thank you. If council chooses to do that, I mean, that's your recommendation. That's correct. Council Member Kay. Well, so, one more time. As I now understand it, 2.2 is what we have already said. We've got it as a sign for non-recurring uses, and you're recommending the additional 1.6 that's up there that we basically use as a cushion, but the council has not said yay or nay about that. So we have the 2.2, and if we chose to, we have the additional 1.6 to allocate if we wanted to today. Is that correct? Yes. That is council's discretion. And I understand it's not your recommendation. He would like to have that as a cushion for items that we can't foresee. But in fact, that's where we stand, 2.2 plus 1.6. Is that correct? I think that's correct. That is your discretion. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Bill, just to clarify, this would not go into the rainy day fund. That's correct. Because that fund can only be used for certain situations, correct? There are limitations with the ordinance. Yes, ma'am. So I just, yes, I understand that the mayor had mentioned, I believe, last year that he would like, or the administration would like to have a fund that wouldn't have those limitations were something to come up. So there really wouldn't be any, we would still have to vote on the spending of these funds, but it doesn't have any ties, I guess is what I'm saying. That's correct. The description is unassigned. So there is no purpose yet assigned to these dollars. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. When you do the CAFR and you put these numbers in, is this going to affect that if we go into the 1.6 then? Well, that's my quandary. I followed guidance from Council, and we have finished the audit, and it has now been sent to the printers. So my position is, at the time the CAFR was completed, this was the agreed reporting of our position at June 30. So actions after that would be after the CAFR has been completed. Yeah. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. So that leads me to a question about the 1.62 million, which you would recommend we keep for unidentified needs through the year, and the administration has brought us a list of needs that until now were unidentified. so for example not to get into any vote right now but the old Fayette County Courthouse number that's a an unidentified need so are you what kind of unidentified needs are you looking at as opposed to these the community in was an unidentified need until a while back And it's a perspective. What I would talk about would be we had 27 snow events and we need additional salt. That's the first one that pops in my mind. You can certainly see these as unidentified until this point in time. But unanticipated is how I would describe them. Okay. All right. Very good. Council do you have any more questions or shall we get to work council my railing her thank you one more question so if we decide to spend the 2.2 and the 1.6 which would be 3.8 what would we have then is our our unassigned fund balance in two million four eighty two two four eight okay that's just one Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right. I hear council members saying, let's go. So do you have a new total for us? The updated total is $2,987,328. $2,987,328. I'm sorry, 328. So on page 3 of your packet, the total where it says at the bottom $9,070,958, you can scratch that, and that's now $2,987,328. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Stacey, does that include my two requests? No, ma'am, it does not include your two, and it does not include the mayor's, the extra three from the mayor for the community inn and the courthouse. Vice mayor, would it be appropriate right now for me to make a motion to include my two items? Yes. And I so move. Well, can you go ahead and remind us what they are? I sent an email to council members. I believe it was on Tuesday. My motion, one, is to include, I'll make two separate motions. First motion is to include into the fund balance request $300,000 for the site preparation for Woodhill Park. We have a community center, as I told in the email, but we have a community center. We have a private investor has come forward and would like to build for the city. We have tentatively agreed. I've been working with Sally and Jeff as well as Kevin on trying to get this done. But we have a private investor that has been willing to spend approximately $2 million to build this community center and then deed it to the city. So moved. We have a motion and a second to add to this list a $300,000 request for site preparation for Woodhill Park. Is there any discussion? I had a question. Councilmember Farmer. This would become number 42 then? Yes, this would become number 42. And yes, Councilmember Stenich has asked me, this is shovel ready. We're ready to go. Shovel ready, and the actual park is being built by a donor? Correct. Okay. Or the funding. The funding. The funding for the building would be completely handled by a private donor. Okay, very good. Any other questions about number 42? Adding it to the list. All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, we've added number 42. Then Vice Mayor, I had a second motion. Okay. My second motion was, and I apologize, my second motion, my aide just ran upstairs. If I can update the amount is to place onto the request funding for sidewalk on Mount Tabor. This has already been approved by streets and roads many years ago, but the funding source has not been there. We have a lot of residents that contact my office requesting the sidewalk there for being able to walk to and from businesses. It's a busy street. It's dangerous. and I will update the amount as soon as I have it, but if I could include that request without the ballpark, I would... Sidewalks. Anybody have any idea? I'm going to say $150,000 to be safe. $150,000? What day did you send your email? I sent it on Tuesday, Vice Mayor. Okay. I didn't have an amount in that as well. Oh, you did not? No, ma'am. All right. So, Council Member Farmer has a question. As this is a border street between the two districts, is this for sidewalks on both sides of the street? Or just on one side? It was just one side at this time. I have my answer. Thank you. Okay, so shall we, I think council members really would like to see a number attached to that before they, do you want to put it on without a number and then make a final decision once we get a number? Council members, we could do that, vote to put the issue on, and then in a minute we'll put the number in. Would that work? Do you want to have your, change your motion or amend it? Motion to put the item in, and I'll update the number. Okay. All right. Any discussion? Okay. This is a motion to make a number 43, which is sidewalk on Mount Tabor Road. All those in favor, please say. Did you? Excuse me a second. Council Member Stenner, did you want to speak to the motion? Okay. Mossadi, did you want to? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. and we'll, as soon as you get that number, we'll have a new motion. Okay, Council Member Massadi. I promise we'll get moving quick. Just one question that I have. Many of these items that we all have are all from either Parks and Recreations or some other departments. Many times these items, we put the money in, but the money doesn't get spent this year. So I wonder maybe if we could have maybe someone from Parks or maybe Mr. Commissioner Reed, if you don't mind, give us an idea of what we realistically can have done this year so we don't have this money put out there and basically be a placeholder and we can't continue the project. I think that's a great question. That's one reason we put the fiscal year 13 projects in here so you could see what hadn't been started. Welcome back, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you so much. It is a very good question. And first let me say I think we've been making a great deal of progress in parks on moving these projects. I think on several of these projects we're further along than the listing would lead you to believe. That being said, we still have had a lot of work put on us. and I think it depends on which project you fund and the complexity of the project and how much work will be involved on our end as to how many we would fund. I communicated with you all, you know, if we get more than two or three more projects, it's going to be difficult to meet the timelines that are envisioned. I can't give you specifics because I don't know which projects you're going to ask for. Some are much more simple than others. but we do have capacity issues. If you were to look at this list, do a quick once over, would there be some that would jump out at you that would say, no way, we're not going to be able to get to this? Oh, gosh. I just think it's fair. If we can't get it done or put the burden on you to get it done, then let's take it off the list. Well, again, I can do any two or three that you give me. The project that Council Member Scutchfield just spoke to, that project is a large project, but we won't have a great deal of involvement once it starts moving. Simpler projects like a resurfacing of a tennis court or a basketball or something like that, we can easily do in-house. When we get into larger construction, trails, bathrooms take time because of the amount of work involved in them. But again, we will take on and try anything the council wants. But the simpler the project, the more we can do. Okay, that makes sense. Like you said, you look at one here for public restrooms for 265 at Lansdowne Merrick. Not to say that they're not needed, but can you do it? We could do a couple. If we get to where we've got a bunch, it will be difficult. Okay. You've answered my question. Thank you. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to make a motion to include the administration's list, the three projects, and if our CAO wants to give us a run view of those three projects, I would make a motion to include them on our list for discussion today. So move. Okay. I have a motion and a second. If she can just tell the public what they are. to include the mayor's, the administration's requests, which are page 13 and 14. And you're talking about 1, 2, and 3, not the support of our first four. Yes, ma'am. Welcome, Madam CAO. Thank you. And I think before, we do have, and we sent to council, and that is in the 1, 2, 3, but we sent to council the new cost from the RFP on the fire study, and that was not $100,000, but 69,850, and I think you received that email. The three projects that we would like you all to look at and consider in your deliberations was the old courthouse, and that was $450,000 for schematic design. Jeff Fugate and I have been working on the old courthouse, and we hope to have some really intense discussions with you all after the first of the year of what kind of directions we need to take over there, and we certainly need council input on that. Then Community Inn, I had discussed with you all at an earlier time a possibility about a location of the Community Inn in one of our buildings. And we talked about at that time that it might cost us $200,000 to get that building ready. We are still in negotiations. That is very much in flux. We have a mediator that we are going to use at the first part of December. And the only thing I was asking here is to keep this in everybody's mind so that if something did work out, we do have that money. And the third thing was police overtime, and that was when we were in conversations with Chief Bastion, that was $100,000 for police overtime, and that is to continue their crime prevention and investigative initiatives. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for the CAO on those items? Thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger has a question Thank you Vice Mayor The first one, the YMCA That would already be one that we've included So that was a dual request Right And they'd ask So your total request would be Close to a million dollars The 450 The 550 750 We had We were in support And I didn't know So your total number would be how much? 750. And I didn't go over those first ones, Council Member Ellinger, because you all had those on your list, and we were certainly in total support. So it's additional 750 to what we have then? That wasn't on your list. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. We have a couple more questions. Council members, did you hear on number, let's see, where did it go, number two on the list, that's no longer $100,000. That's $69,850. So I'll ask Stacey, do you have a current number without the sidewalk on Mount Tabor number? Yes, ma'am. It's 4,007,178. Can you say that one more time? I'm sorry. 4,007,178. 178? And does that include the administration requests? That includes 300,000 for Woodhill Park, 750,000 for the administration requests that Sally just talked, and the updated number on the fire station relocation study. It does not include a number for Mount Tabor sidewalks. Okay. Right. Okay. So the request list is $4,007,178 without Mount Tabor sidewalks, but with the old courthouse, the community, and the police overtime. Correct? Okay. All right. Everybody on the same page with that? $4,001,000. $4,007,178. in requests okay well I think this is oh Councilmember K we have other people to speak oh no we're gonna work through our list now so did Councilmember Lane did you want to have a question about what we were just talking about or we're gonna start on the list then okay I was gonna comment on the courthouse but we We can do that when we go down the list. Okay. Thank you. Council members, do you want to, where would you like to, my thinking is we would start with our list of four items. It's actually five items, the one through five, those that we voted in concept for plus the first item of the YMCA. I think that's a good place to start. That's a good place. So, okay, so let's go ahead and we know for sure that the $2.2 million is available for use, and then council will need to decide how it wants to address the $1.62 million that the administration would like to keep for unanticipated needs. Okay, and will you or Paul be keeping kind of a running total for us? Okay, thank you. So number one on our list is a request that's been around for a while, $253,000 to fulfill our promise to the YMCA. Move to approve. Second. And we have a motion to approve and to second. Is there any discussion? I see none. All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. That was easy, David. You can reassure the other David. Okay. And then we have four items that the council passed in concept. First is number two, the third-party study for strategic fire station location analysis for $69,850. I have a motion by Councilmember Kay, second by Councilmember Henson to approve. Is there discussion? Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So this is a separate study from the location of the fire station that's on the attached list, correct? Yes. This is the one that... Number two. Yes. Okay. This is the study for the location of the fire stations. But... Strategically. Which one can you tell us which one here? Okay, so on the attachment from the administration where it says fire station location study that's to be determined? That's the same one. Those are the same. Okay, that's what I wanted to make sure that it was the same. Okay, thank you. Any other questions about this particular item? I see none, so all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Number three is to fund one small area plan at $100,000. Is there a motion? Council Member Akers. Do we know which of the three small area plans? We generally don't specify. We let planning work from their list. Commissioner Paulson, do you know if they have one in mind? Yeah, we just started one, correct? So this would be for a... We've got two that are ongoing right now. I believe the next on the list is for the Windburn area. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, before you, hold on. You have two that are currently underway? Correct. And if we approve this today, how soon could they start this one? I think we could probably get the scope done. It would be spring at the earliest, just because of the process we'd have to go through for RFP and everything. And where are the other two scheduled to be completed? Yeah, Peggy would know on that. Actually, George and Peggy could probably tell you just as well as anyone. I think they're – I mean, it sounds like we're running up against another budget cycle. This is not – in other words, this is not make or break an area that we've been – It would allow us to get ahead. A couple months, maybe. Because I think the difference would be – well, it would be about six months. You know, if we waited until July, it would probably be somewhere in fall before the earliest we could get it started. So it would give us a kickstart, which could, if we get budget for a fourth to start, that would allow us to stair-step them a little more than doing it. How long does it take to complete one? Are we averaging? Say probably nine months. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I had a question procedurally. What are our choices, I guess, in going through these? approve, decline, or can we pass and come back to talk about later? We can do anything you want. I mean, I guess I'm trying to make sure that we all know what we have to choose here, because I think some of these might be things we like, but we need to review others first. And I think that's always an option. Or there's the option of if we like an item but not for the fund balance, we could create a list to ask the mayor to put in the budget. There's that option. There's all kinds of options. I'm going to make a motion at this time, Mayor, then to, I guess, pass or hold this until the end. Okay. So you're amending the motion? Yes. Okay. There's a motion and a second to amend the motion to hold item number three to the end. Did you want to speak to the amendment? Yes, Council Member Myers. If I could get you to amend that, could you amend that motion to ask the mayor to put that into the budget next year? My intention is actually what we can do. My intention in holding, passing it to the end is seeing if once we get to the end we truly want to do this or not. And then at that time we can look at any of those items we've passed to the end and then make determinations on those, whether those get passed on to the mayor. Does that kind of a three-step process? That'll work. I just want to say that these are very important, I think, and we've got one going on in my district. It took two or three years to get the money scraped together to do it, and so I'd really like to see this go into the budget next year, but if you just want to hold on to the end, we can bring it back up. Thank you. Okay. Okay, Council Member Kay. I wanted to speak to the amendment as well. I agree. It takes six months to get these things going. If they don't have the authorization now, that delays the next plan for at least another six, eight months. So I'd like to see that. We agreed in principle to fund it. I think we ought to go ahead and fund it. Thank you. Any other speakers to the amendment? Okay. The amendment on the floor is to the motion to hold the small area plan for $100,000 to the end to be brought up again for discussion. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? Aye. And I believe that that has passed. So that amendment goes to the full motion to bring this up at the end of our discussion. Is there any discussion about that motion, the main motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? So item number three will hold until the end. All right. Item number four is the connectivity at the pools to track, manage, and analyze data of users. And this item is a $30,000 item. and then there will be, as I understand it from Ms. CIO Falicenti, there will be a $23,000 request in the next budget. Is that correct to finish it? That is correct. The intent is so that the staff would be able to take credit cards, take payments, and make sure that folks have paid for entrance to the pools. It will not provide any connectivity to the general public. Okay. So it's a phased, it's a two-step process, and this first 30,000 step could be implemented by next summer? That's right. Okay. Are there any questions about that or any motions? Council Member Scutchfield. Vice Mayor, and I think you'll recall, since you and I both serve on Parks and Recreation Board, this is something that they very strongly would like to have happen. But one thing I did want to bring up, that the Parks and Rec Board also wanted to have the opportunity to rank council's request for parks. And I know that this is definitely outside, but I think going through all of the parks, we have a lot of park stuff on here. And so I'm hesitant to say yes or no for any park stuff until maybe we've had a little bit more input. parks board. But that's at the council's discretion. Obviously, everybody on council has somebody that represents their district on the parks board as well. Okay, very good. Thank you. So is there a motion on number four? So moved. Second. Okay, Council Member Massadi motioned to approve and Council Member Myers seconded the item number four, which is the first phase of the connectivity. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Item number four has passed. And I'm thinking by the time we get to the end of the first page, maybe our financial folks over there can give us an update on the numbers. Number five is another one that we approved in concept during budget discussions, a $20,000 item, which is a study for the location, determination, design, and planning for a splash park in the East End. Any motions or? Okay, we have a motion. Do I hear a second? Okay, this dies for lack of a second in terms of approving. Is there any other motion concerning this item to move it to the bottom or do you just want to pass it? I would move to place this item on hold till the end. Okay. The same as number three. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to place the Splash Park determination, design, and planning to the end. Hold it to the end on our list. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? I think I heard one no. Okay. Let's do an electronic vote, please. if you want to defer this to the end vote yes if you don't vote no that motion passes all right that's a hold now we are down to number seven which is the thirty five thousand dollar item to re-establish funding of the street tree hazardous street tree cost sharing program within the urban service boundary council member kay thank you vice mayor i don't want to speak to that item itself i would like to speak to the procedure. Okay. We've got some big ticket items that I believe there's significant support for and I'd like to allow some motions that are not in order of number so we can go yay or nay on some significant numbers and see then what we have left. And if council agrees with that, then I'd like to make a motion. Okay. I think if we're going to do that, this is the time because we've finished all of our items that we approved in concept before this meeting. So is there any sentiment or motion to do that? I hear just keep going down the list. How many? Okay, let's, Council Member Kay, did you want to speak again? Well, I just think it would simplify our process if we can get clarification on some of the big ticket items and then we'll know what we have left. I think it's very hard to make a decision about especially the pile of things we have for parks, as has already been indicated, without knowing what we really have to play with. I don't want to be spending $20,000 and $30,000 and $75,000 and whatever and then come to the end and have an item that we don't have any money left for or we don't have enough left for. There's a couple of, I think, significant items on our list that there's a lot of community interest in. I would like to see them discussed and voted up or down so we know where we stand. Thank you. Okay, and this has spurred some interest. Council Member Masati. I understand what you're saying, Council Member Kay, but by us putting these other things on hold, isn't that what we're ultimately doing anyways? well my concern is we're going to be placing a lot of things on hold and then we're going to have to go back to them whereas if we knew if we had a better idea how much money we had we'd know whether we wanted to authorize them i'm just interested in and kind of moving the process forward so basically expediting the process is that what you're looking at expediting the process is that what you're trying to do yes Councilmember Ellinger I'm sorry there was I guess they already spoke we just had a little sidebar I guess what we're doing right now is deciding because sometimes when we go through this budget we set a revenue number and then we spend what that revenue number is at this point we're spending to the 2.2 and then after that we'll decide if we want to dip into that 1.6 is that what we're going to make that determination then? Yes. Okay. and at the end of this page we were going to get an update on what amount of money is remaining if you want to make a motion it'll go either up or down i'll make it a motion so that we clarify i move that we allow motions on specific items that are not in the numerical order on this list so move decide what they are though is there a second Councilmember Clark seconded all right is there any discussion or does everybody know what that means Councilmember Henson are you I'm not I'm not sure this is the best way to correct it because I know there are some large ticket items on here but that doesn't necessarily mean that are more important than a $9,000 slide that I have on here for the kids. I mean, so I would just, I don't know, or if we place the items like that on hold for parks, then view, you know, maybe there would be some fair way to distribute funds for the parks items. But I know a lot of the items on here are for parks, so I don't necessarily agree with just going to the large ticket items. Thank you. I apologize. Okay, Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I understand Council Member Kaye's concern. I think the fallacy of the process is that if something, if an item, regardless of how important we think it is in a priority list, if it happens to be a single-digit number, it's going to have a lot better chance of getting some funding than if it's 38, 41, or whatever. And it looks like to me, once we go through this, if we nickel and dime this to death, we get to the end of the list, whether those things are more important or not, we spend all our money. And so I do see the problem. I'm not sure that the motion solves the problem, but I do see it as a problem that the system is certainly flawed, and I'm not sure how to correct that. maybe this is the way to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Clark. We've tried a variety of systems over the years, and I think the new vice mayor will have the challenge of finding the perfect system. With that said, our Granica system is having some malfunctions. If you sign in, it won't let you get off the list, so I'll try to keep track, and it won't, It doesn't give you, it doesn't keep time anymore. So I'll leave that up to group peer pressure to keep the time. Now, if you can remove yourself from the list and you've already spoken, please try to do that. That seems to be working. Okay. So let's see. Where are we? we have a motion on the floor to allow council members to make motions to pull out items for discussion. Is there any further discussion? Okay, Council Member Farmer has a point. I, too, understand what he's trying to accomplish. I think maybe the way the motion was couched or the way it's been debated might not have been as clear. another way potentially to do this to get to the same end is to re-rack the list from the largest dollar value down and thereby seeing which ones you kick in and kick out. However, what that potentially does is it changes the order in which these have been submitted or tracked and to the subtle part of the other side of the motion, And it gives some preference to some things that came in very late and without council input to the list. And I think that's where you come to a split on which way to go on this. I understand if we took the big number items and we decided on them, then we could see what's left and do the smaller number items. But it would be a leap of faith departure from the way we currently are doing it. Okay. Good perspective. Thank you. Anything else on the motion? And let's do this electronically. Vice Mayor? Yes, Council Member Ellinger. This will just belabor the point, but we only have three minutes to correct all this anyway, so we better move quickly. We have our next meeting. I assume we're going to move that. We have a committee of the whole at 430, but we can roll right through that, I think, and whenever we finish here, go right straight to that. Sounds good. Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. Okay, all those in favor of the motion to be able to make motions to pull out items for discussion, please log your vote, yay or nay. Everyone's thinking. okay we have that motion did everyone vote that motion fails seven to five all right let's keep on then back to number seven and council member move approval we have a motion a second any discussion on number seven all right all those in favor please say aye anyone opposed so that motion passes to allocate 35,000 to the hazardous street tree cost sharing program. And the next item is number 10. Lex Arts supporting funds for Oliver Lewis Way Bridge Public Art Project $50,000. Motions? Discussion? Second. We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there discussion? Council Member Stennett. Is this ready to go, Council Member Akers? Is this something that's been worked on already and we're to the point where this money will be spent? Yes. So an RFQ was submitted earlier this year, and then we have narrowed the finalists to three, which there will be a press release forthcoming this week or early next, announcing those three finalists. They will share their proposals in January, and then we hope to actually get the project completed before the Breeders' Cup. So that's why funding. And the total budget is $100,000. Ten has already been raised, and then I am trying to raise the other remaining $40,000 through private donations. And where is it located at? On the bridge. So it will actually be a structural installation along the Oliver Lewis Way Bridge. Good. Thank you. Yes. It will be the largest public art project in Lexington's history, actually. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. We have a motion and a second to approve this $50,000 allocation. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Number 11 is the traffic engineering, the signal improvements in the 5th District, 150,000. Council Member Farmer, that is yours. I will speak to this in some specificity. However, for purposes of trying to make things work better, when I make the motion, it will be for 100,000, not 150,000. All right? Okay. In the work we have been doing recently through the MPO and through, I need to say first, this is specifically and only about Henry Clay Boulevard and the amount of traffic that is on Henry Clay Boulevard. We've made requests through the MPO and to the state to upgrade the signal systems at three or four different locations on Shinaway and two places on Richmond Road. When you turn to Henry Clay Boulevard, a strictly residential street that is one of the only three places you can cross the railroad track, you have a tremendous influx placed on this neighborhood that is not on Walton Avenue and is not on New Circle Road. So the attempt here is to reprogram the signal to make it have better pedestrian signaling and to add traffic calming things on either side of it through the work of the traffic engineering folks to make Henrique Blvd. safer, which it was one of the places where someone was hit on Tuesday night. Oh, yeah. And I believe she broke her arm and hurt her leg and lost her dogs, which is not what you need to do on a residential street. And as it would happen, we did do a speed study over there, the 6th through the 9th. The total number of vehicles was 5,200. The total number of vehicles above the speed limit was 48, almost 4,900. Average speed was, I mean, posted speed limit 25. Average speed 32. Highest speed on Henry Clay Boulevard, 56. So I'm asking for $100,000 to help this neighborhood and help the commuters who use it. So moved. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve the $100,000 for number 11, Henry Clay Boulevard, signal improvements. Any discussion? All right. Council Member Massadi. Mr. Farmer, would you be amenable to put this on the whole list? Okay. Don't put it over there. I mean, if we're going to hold this where someone was hurt this week and go ahead and fund public art, then we need to go back and re-rack the whole deal. We need to take care of these folks, my estimation. Any other questions or comments? Council Member Scotchfield. I, along the lines for Council Member Masotti, I don't know that I'm, I won't vote for this in the end. I think I'll vote no right now because I think there's other issues we need to talk about first. I don't disagree about safety, but looking at some of the other things that we have on here, safety in sidewalk safety and anything else as well. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. The motion is to approve number 11 at $100,000. All those in favor, please log in your vote. And that motion passes. And we have one more on this first page. Thank you. The last item is the $15,000 for National League of Cities membership reinstatement. I have a motion to approve. Is there a second? And a second. Is there discussion? I see none. All those in, I see one. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to raise the concern or the flag that this would be a recurring cost or is listed as a recurring cost. I realize we could just pay it for this year and not next year. So I would not support this, I guess, because of that. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? And I guess Council Member Ford isn't here. Would this be for, does anyone know, is this for half a year? Or what is this? Does this cover, Council? When Council Member Ford spoke with me about this item, his intention was to have it put in the budget going forward and speak with the mayor's office about splitting the cost as it was done in the past. So do we know if this is for January through June? Well, this way our fiscal year is based, it would have to be, but I don't know what their membership is. I don't know if we could do it for six months or not. Okay. Council Member Kay, did you want to add something? I believe that Council Member Ford's intention was to allow membership in this, whatever this, I don't know if it's a fiscal year or a calendar year, rather than wait until another year to get it in the budget so that if someone from this council wanted to participate, they would be able to do that. But I don't know. I presume it covered this as annual dues, so it's for a year. I don't know. Thank you. Council Member Clark, or Council Member Akers, I'm sorry. Did you? No. Council Member Clark. Yes, thank you. Again, I think this is important that we should be members of the National League of Cities, and I think it's appropriate that we do this, but not with fund balance. I think this should be part of our budget, and just leave it at that. Thank you. Thank you. I see no other speakers. So the motion on the floor is to approve, but I see Council Member Farmer now. Council Member Farmer. Based on that really excellent discussion point, I would move to amend this to the deferred list, or even to start a new list just for the mayor for the next budget year. Okay. So that would be it. This would be it. So the motion is to place number 12 on a new list, which is recommendations to the mayor for the next budget. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Is there discussion on this motion? I see none. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Very good. Thank you. That motion passes to start the list to request the mayor to put these in the budget. Was that amended? That was an amendment. Yes. Thank you. So now we'll vote on the main motion, and our electronic voting is up. So, council members, if you'll go ahead and log in to place $15,000 on a request to the mayor for the new budget for National League of Cities. And that motion passes. Thank you very much. Okay. Now, we are at the end of the first page, so I'd like an update if you can give us one on the... We're working right now only with the $2.2 million number, and eventually we're going to need to talk about the other number, the $1.6. But what is our remaining balance is $1,662,150. I'm sorry, can you say that once again? $1,662,150. Okay, council members? that is that's out of the 2.2 million yes okay so there's 1.662150 now I would like to ask Council Member Ellinger to take the chair a moment certainly Vice Mayor thank you Um, so, uh, Council Member Kaye's earlier motion to allow us to pick items off the list to bring them forward failed. And we are getting ready to go into a page which starts most of our parks projects. And except for a couple of exceptions, we have about two pages of parks items. And so I have decided personally to hold my yes votes until we can vote on the amount of money for the old courthouse. This council has over and over supported doing renovations and moving forward on the old courthouse. And that's a large request. It's almost half a million dollars. And I'm not convinced that we have the ability to move forward on most of these parks projects. We heard from Commissioner Reed about the situation we're in. I'm not opposed to these parks projects. I want everybody to understand that. The fact that I might vote no doesn't mean I'm opposed to the project. It means I'm saving my vote in case we can get to a point where we can vote to allocate some money to move forward with the old courthouse project. And I just wanted to explain that to everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And the Chair. Thanks. Okay. Council Member Farmer, are you up to speak? I was going to make a comment in response to yours. Okay. Or just furthering the conversation. going back to his motion which you referenced, in trying to spread these things out, it might be, and you're making a point with the parks things that we're not in a position to program them, we're not in a position to do them, to build them. Maybe there might be a motion now potentially to, I mean, we're just getting ready to look at 13 and 14. Then it looks like 15 through 38 are all parks related. Yes. Then I would make a potential, I'll make a motion to place the parks issues, numbers 15 through 38, on our deferred list to come back to. Okay. Just to see if that works. All right. Thank you. We have a motion to place numbers 15 through. Actually, we struck 38, so it would be 37, technically, onto a deferred list. Discussion of the motion. And we already have people signed up. Are you on for the—do you want to just raise your hand for the motion, Council Member Stennett? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Council Member Farmer, thank you. I appreciate you making that motion. But we go back to the budget time. We took the same process we did during the budget, and we didn't get to some of these that were asked for in the budget. I know I have one in particular that is ready to go, has been waiting since the budget. I played by the rules back in June, and we haven't done a thing on the project because we're lacking the final $20,000. So I'm going to vote against it because I think there's some that are shovel ready we can get done today and be done with it. So I think we need to not make these wait again. but I agree with the vice mayor and her comments. There are some big things that need to be taken care of and my votes were reflected accordingly. I think that's the process and I think that's what we should do. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Farmer, did you get to finish? Yeah. Council Member Ellinger, is this to the motion? Well, it's kind of to the motion. You can kind of decide. What I was looking at is in the same breath as what you said and also Council Member Farmer is a lot of these are park issues. and we don't know if they all can be done this fiscal year or not. And what I was thinking is you put a number that we give to the administration that goes towards parks and they make a determination of what is shuffle ready and what they can get done in this fiscal year. And the ones that they can, they go through and work through that amount. It would be kind of the same thing that I think Council Member Farmer and you said is I don't know if we can get all these done, but we could put a placeholder number and let them make the determination of the list that we give them, and they work down that list on the ones that are ready to do and go down through there. I'm sure district members are not going to be really excited about that because they have certain projects they want, but looking at it from an at-large standpoint, this way we get as many projects done as we can in the quickest time possible. So that's kind of how I'm looking at doing this with parks, and it also let us go to some of the later items that I think are very important to get done to. Okay, very good. Council Member Stennett, did you already get to say everything? Okay, Council Member Kay. Thank you. Well, this obviously is in the spirit of the earlier motion that I made. I'll be supportive of it. It does not take anything off the list. It defers them. We've already deferred a few things. This would defer the rest of the parks to the end of our discussion. We'll come back to them. It just would allow us to get to some of these other items before then, so I'll be supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate Councilmember Ellinger's comments, but I guess my position is, and I've said this over and over throughout the budget process every year, when you look at any year that we've had a surplus that the council has gone back to determine how to spend, probably until you start adding in things like public safety and things the administration wants, probably 80-90% of what we vote for are park projects. So here again we're talking about delaying park projects. The district council members are the only people fighting for these projects in their districts. So, you know, the thing that I thought is most interesting every year is that, and I want to be nice to parks and I want to be rude, but I would say this. It seems to me that if every year when we have this conversation, we are putting money in parks to spend money on parks projects. You would think that parks would figure out a way to get with the council and sit down and say, what is it that you want? What is it that your districts want in your parks? And that hasn't happened. And so if we do this and we delay this again, then we're right back to that same position where districts aren't getting the things that they need. And so I'll just stop there. I appreciate parks. I appreciate everything parks is doing. but the council members are fighting for the things in their districts and they're the only ones doing that. And so this is, once again, an opportunity for us to do that instead of having things pushed back. Thank you. We have Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I happen to agree with Council Member Ellen Gerber because I know we all have so many needs within parks and just to make it fair, I actually only have two parks items on here, but I could have put numerous others, but they're not shovel-ready. So I would be in agreement, But I also think the administration should look at a plan, assessment for each of the parks. We have a new park director who I think is doing a very good job. And maybe he could just do an assessment of each of the parks and determine what their needs are for the next fiscal year. But for this fund balance, I think in order to be fair with everyone around this horseshoe, let them determine what they can get done. So thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. This argues for what I've been asking for for years, which is the Charlie Martin list for parks, the capital improvement plan for parks. And I believe it's being worked on, perhaps. So, yes, you're welcome to the podium anytime, Madam CAO. I agree totally with the conversations you're having, and we've had the same ones internally. It bothers all of us very much to keep coming back to you and saying, we don't have the capacity to do the projects you want. You know, then we're never going to get anything done if we keep saying this. So I think we've got to do two things. And we've got to get that Charlie Martin type list for the parks, but we have to change how we're doing this. We can't expect to take Michelle and two other people and say, here, go do this. So we've got to set this up differently. There is a way when you're going to blacktop something, we should be bidding all these at one time, or you're going to do certain you do them all at one time from a different project manager. We're doing this wrong. This is what's killing. I mean, and this is why we're not able to satisfy your needs. And we're going to change all this because otherwise we're never going to let you be responsive to your constituents. We're always going to say we can't do it. And when you've got money, you ought to be able to do it. So I guess. I appreciate that. I think all the council members appreciate that very much. So we are going to give you what you need. Thank you. Commissioner, did you want to add anything at this moment? I think so. No. I see. I mean, it's a pretty, it's, you don't have to, but I think it's an important discussion that we're having because someone up here said kind of off the mic, you know, this always is what happens every year is this long list of parks projects. I agree with Sally. You agree with Sally? Okay. She is your boss. Yes, I think that the criticism is justified. I think we can do things better. I think we can do them differently. I think, again, we were in a mode where there wasn't much money, there wasn't many projects getting funded, and parks internally contracted a great deal. And now as things improve and the economy improves, we don't have the ability to meet a bent-up demand. and that's not Park's fault altogether, but we need to get more limber and do things differently. I do think that we have instilled a greater focus on interaction with council members on projects, and we have been working much more closely with members than we have in the past, and will continue to do that. We also need an overall strategic vision. we need a complete plan of where we're going and what we're doing. And I think that's going to be a very high priority for what we ask you. And I don't think we have the capability to do that in-house. We're going to have to get help to get that assistance to look at overall where we go, what we put in what parks, and how we go about accomplishing it. Okay. We appreciate that very much. Thank you. And thank you, CAO Hamilton. So now we, our motion on the floor, and there are some folks to speak to it, is to take 15 through 37 and move them to the hold list. So Council Member Akers, to the motion. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I will not support this motion, primarily because two of my parks projects were on the list for the 2013 fund balance discussion, and then for the 2014. And so here we are again. And as everybody has stated, the number one complaint in my district is that we don't have enough parks. There's been so much development in the West End, and there are not parks to keep up with the need and the demand. And even the ones that I have are not even new parks because we don't have money for land. We don't have money for the parks. And so a lot of this is just maintenance and that sort of thing. So I do not think that we should move these to the bottom of the list. I do have another motion to amend one of mine, though, to help matters, but I'll save that for a moment. Thank you. All right. Council Member Beard. That's my... I'm not voting on this action right now. I have something, though, I do wish to speak about a little later after we get this taken care of. Okay. Very good. Anyone else to the motion? Okay, all those in favor of moving items 15 through 37 to the hold list, vote yes. All those opposed, vote no. Everybody vote. Okay, the motion passes by a 7 to 5 vote. So items 15 through 37 will be delayed and put on the hold till the end list. You know, this is part of the sausage making. Okay. So we now are, we still have items 13 and 14. Number 13 is Council Member Masati's request for Clay's Mill Road sidewalk, Copper Run to Twain Ridge, $150,000. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As you all are aware, they just finished Phase 2 of the Clay's Mill Road widening, and they stopped at Twain Ridge, and we have no sidewalk from there to Copper Run Boulevard. There's a picture of the area that has no sidewalk, and I would appreciate your consideration for extending that sidewalk from Twain Ridge to Copper Run Boulevard. Move approval. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to approve the allocation of $150,000 for item 13. Any discussion? Council Member Scutchfield? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I used to live right off of Twain Ridge and used to walk on the grass there, so I definitely agree that we need walking. Derek, if you can come down real quick, and I apologize. What I'm trying to, I guess, make, Derek and I have been talking about this, because how many sidewalks does the MPO have on its list of priorities? That's what we're trying to determine. I'm not sure how many are actually listed on there. The Mount Tabor project that we were talking about is part of a larger project that includes curb and gutters and others. That's one of the things we've discussed internally as well is where you've got new roads that go in, it's a little bit easier. In parts of Clay's Mill, we are doing a lot of those work. But in areas that do not have sidewalks, how do we go back and put in sidewalks? How do we start that process? And I think that's something that we're working on right now is to create a process for that. And importantly, that's going to include how do we rank it, how do we find the funds for it, And that may be something that comes out of our discussion of the MAP funds as well, is how do we go through and do this on a more consistent basis. I know Southland Drive has been one that we've talked about. Mount Tabor is another one. There are numerous parts throughout Lexington where we just don't have those sidewalks for whatever reason. So we are currently working on that process. And, again, trying to get that into the MPO is an important part of that so that we can get some of those other funds available. And, Derek, obviously we've talked. I'm going to make the motion on mine to put the amount in, and I know what the result is going to be when the amount is put in. But obviously, some of these sidewalks connect businesses with people. And what I'm asking, I guess, and I'm supportive of yours, Councilmember Massadi, but what I'm asking the administration to do is really make a concerted effort to make sure that our businesses get connected to the people. These are areas that are walked unsafe by our residents and our taxpayers. And so as we move forward, let's start trying to figure out how to connect these communities. That's one of those things that we did just discuss about a week and a half ago is how do we start putting it. It's not the only issue. We've also got other issues in terms of those sidewalks, making sure that they're ADA compliant. How do we make sure that those things are being done throughout the community as well on a regular basis rather than an ad hoc basis? So those are all things we're trying to do. And that's, again, when we start to do this, it's about how do we score those and rank those in a way that makes sense so that we can get to everything in a priority timeline. You're welcome. Council Member Kaye. Commissioner, before you, and actually I don't know whether Council Member Massadi has the answer or you have the answer. Does that proposed sidewalk connect to other sidewalks? Does it connect, as Council Member Scotchfield has asked, does it connect residents to business? Or is it just a stretch that doesn't have any connection? It was a stretch that kind of got left out of the deal. I mean, they went up to Twain Ridge with the widening of Claysmill Road with the sidewalk, and they stopped there. And it didn't go on to finish to that other neighborhood. So that neighborhood's kind of left out by itself. And if you go on any further than that, you hit the county line. So that would just connect it all the way from the top. So it's two existing sections of sidewalk? No, one, because if you keep on going any further, you hit the county line. County line. So it's a small piece between Copper Run and Twain Ridge, and I don't even know what it, I guess, maybe, yeah, probably less than a quarter of a mile. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing no one. All those in favor of number 13, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, will you log in your, we had a couple of eyes, but I know there are several people up here. Council members, will you log in your electronic vote, please? For number 13, sidewalks. Okay, that vote passes. All right, thank you very much. And number 14 is the Commonwealth Attorney item for $37,500 for a new prosecutor position, for half of a new prosecutor position. Council Member Massadi? We can do it for $35,000. We can do it for $35,000. I've gotten confirmation on that. We can approve for $35,000. I have a motion to approve for $35,000 and a second. Any discussion? Are you on first? Council Member Kaye, are you on for this item? Okay. I see, okay, Council Member Myers. Yes, ma'am. Is this the one we said was a reoccurring expense? Yes. Okay, thank you. Council, is there any other discussion? Okay. Council Member Ellinger, would you mind to take the chair again? Chairs aren't. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Chairs aren't supposed to make motions. I would like to move to amend number 14 to place this item on the list to go to the mayor for the budget. We have a motion to segment. Council Member Farmer, any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, that passes. And I will move the chair back to you, Vice Mayor. Okay, thank you very much. So the main motion then, which has been amended, is to approve asking the mayor to place on next year's budget $35,000 for, pardon me? Okay. Okay, so do you want to make a motion to amend the motion? Because it's now at $35,000. Well, it would be $75,000 if we put it in the mayor's budget because now it's for a half a year. Okay, do I hear a second? Second. Okay, there's a motion to amend. 14 to ask the mayor to place a $75,000 prosecutor position in the budget. Any discussion on the amendment? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? All right. Now, the main motion is a $75,000 allocation to be requested of the mayor for the next budget. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. I guess you can log in. Anyone opposed? Okay. So that item passes, and so that item will go to the mayor on a list of budget requests. Now, we've moved 15 through 37 on a hold list at the end. We still have 42 and 43. Can you give us an updated number? Oh, gosh, yes. With those changes, we have a balance of the 2.2 original number of 1,512,150. Okay. 1,512,150. Yes, ma'am. Out of the original 2.2 million. And pardon me, I misspoke because we still have items 39, 40, and 41, which came out of Environmental Quality Committee. And 42 and 43. And 42 and 43. So we have a motion for number 39, which is to allocate $80,000 for tree removal and county road maintenance. And we have a second. Is there any discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Does this have to come out of the general fund? Can it come out of the county road or come out of the map money? Commissioner, do you know? Well, I'm just asking if it's... Well, the map money. Could this come out of map money? And to Councilman Browlinger's question. I will give a guess that it would not because it's not the roads. These are the trees. But we can certainly check and see. A portion of it says county road maintenance. Right, exactly. I took a guess. Ms. Susan Flug. This is actually C-R-A-P money. I'm sorry, what kind of money? That was allocated for this year, and so it was unavailable for this year. Next year, we will seek some funding for that, but this was for between January and June of this year to tackle this problem. Okay. All right. So I don't know that we really got an answer to your question, Council Member Ellinger. The county road maintenance might be able to come out of the MAP funds, correct? Or does it have to be resurfacing? I defer to my colleagues in the other areas. We're still not sure that the county road can do the trees or not. The dollars are not there for this year. But the question that you ask is if it's appropriate. I don't have a definitive answer for you. Okay. Does Commissioner Paulson? Just so that we can have lots more people talk about it. This is Andrew Grumwald administers the crap county road aid program. And I love to say that. County Road. But this is one of those things. This is where Judge Larson is the judge executive administers this as well. And they just had met a couple weeks ago to allocate the remaining funds for this year. So that is something that we have talked about. I think we're trying to get that clarification on it, and we will find out for sure. I'll get Andrew and the new judge executive as well to weigh in on it for next year's budget. But I know they've allocated just a couple weeks ago at the most recent fiscal court the remaining budget. And it's going to be paving. They've spent the remaining on paving in the county road area. So we will get a clarification on that between Andrew, the new judge executive, and legal as well. Okay. All right. For next year, again, not for this year. Okay. Thank you. So is there any other question, Councilmember Myers, about the motion here? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I was going to ask the question because we're talking about whether or not this is applicable to the map funds But does anyone know how much of this is is for trees removal and how much of it is road maintenance? Because you have both of them listed in this line item This request is all related to vegetative maintenance on county roads whether it's trees or honeysuckle removal Oh, I'm sorry. This this is all relates to vegetative vegetation maintenance on county roads. It has nothing to do with the roadway itself. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. The motion is to approve $80,000 for this rural tree removal and county road maintenance, the vegetative part. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. All right. Number 40. Second. I have a motion to approve and a second. for $70,000 allocation to corridors, landscaping cleanup and maintenance. Is there any discussion? And this says it's recurring, but I, is this a one, this is a one-time, okay. Scratch recurring and this is a one-time allocation. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to get information, I guess, about where specific landscaping might be. Is it just all over, or do we have particular areas that are being focused on? It really is all over. Our goal with this funding is to touch every single corridor and to do basic cleanup maintenance on every corridor related to vegetation. So we'll be all around the city. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Are there other questions? Seeing none, all those in favor of this item, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Number 41. We have a first motion and a second for a $100,000 allocation to go to Corridors Beautification in preparation for the Breeders' Cup. Is there discussion on the motion? I see none. There is, oh, sorry, Council Member Beard. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Is $100,000 going to do the job? It will do a job. It will do what we can do with it. We very much would like to have additional funding, and we are going to be looking at using Keep Lexington Beautiful as a mechanism to gain sponsorships, to provide additional funds to do more plantings, but this will provide us some areas of beautification. I would just hate for us to present a lick and a promise to this group and then never get the Breeders' Cup again. I don't know in what depth you've gone to make the number 100,000 as opposed to 120 or 150 or 98 or whatever. The plan has not yet been developed, and so we're working on how we're going to do that right now because we'll need to begin the planting projects in the spring. Yes, certainly with more funding, we will do larger projects and more projects. But we will focus on the main corridors into town from the interstates with this funding. And again, we're going to be looking to get additional sponsorships. About for Sales Road. Maybe for Sales, Newtown, Winchester, and probably part of Man of War. But again, we can't do all of that with $100,000. that this would be our starting base that we would work from. Well, good luck. It's just, you know, a few extra dollars could go a long way. I welcome whatever you all can provide. Well, I understand I got to have eight more or seven more votes. but it is an important situation and a great opportunity for us that will bring us a bunch of dollars also. Yes. We will implement. Yes. Yes, sir. We'll implement whatever's provided. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think the $100,000 is just for this fiscal year. I'm sure you're going to come back because the Brewer's Cup itself is not until October of 2015, 15, so I'm sure there'll be stuff between July and October that you'll probably be doing besides what this $100,000 is going to do, too, I would think. Yes, I would expect. We would have like a second phase plan, and we'd also know how many sponsorships you would have by that time, so we'll have a much better feel. This would be the start, but not the completion. Yes. This is phase one. Councilmember Ellinger. I mean, Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I wanted to mention that the For Sales Road Corridor study will be done by the end of the year. And that study does have some identified beautification projects. And it should also include the cost. But, I mean, that doesn't help us today. but going forward and possibly getting donations or whatever we might be able to come up with for the Breeders' Cup. Yes, we're coordinating with that project, and we're also coordinating with the Transportation Cabinet because they also have future plans. We want to minimize what we do that will be negatively impacted in the future and maximize working in areas that aren't going to be disturbed by future projects. Thank you. Thank you very much. So the motion is to approve number 41 at 100,000. Can you put the electronic voting up? I think it's easier. We'll just do that. All those in favor, please log in your vote, aye or nay. Too late. Okay. That motion passes. All right. Thank you. We have two more items before we move off of this list, number 42 and number 43. Councilmember Scutchfield, you have your site prep item number 42 at $300,000. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to approve the $300,000 for site prep for the Woodhill Park Community Center. Second. Okay. Is there discussion on the motion? And if you have already spoken, will you please take your name off of the list if you can? Councilmember Myers. Yes, go ahead. Okay. So we pushed all the park things back to the end of the list? We pushed numbers 15 through 37. That was the motion. So if we're going to go to parks, why wouldn't we start back at the top of the list instead of starting right here? Because this is the very last thing that was added. You could just withdraw the motion, too. I mean, this is the item that has a $2 million private contribution attached to it, I believe, which is a little different in a way. So the motion on the floor right now is to approve $300,000 for the site prep for this project. Although it runs into parks, this is not a parks project because we will do a land lease with the company in order to build the center. So parks, they're going to donate it then back to us as a finished community center. So although it's in a park, it is not part of parks development. Jeff, do you agree with that analysis of it? Okay. I wanted to make you, I didn't want to speak for you. Are there other questions? Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So what is the $300,000 for? Is Parks doing the $300,000 work, or is that some other department? Yes, Parks will do it, but is Jamshed in here? As far as the site preparation, this would be making sure that the site is prepared for the construction. So making sure that it's leveled out. Is that correct? If you could, can you? I can't speak about this. I wouldn't want to describe site prep either. So the bulldozer removes everything. I don't know. We've already completed the phase one environmental assessment as well as basic geotechnical. All we were waiting for was to, for the final location and the footprint of the proposed facility. We've already put together a basic initial estimate on what we call site grading, including with some drainage as well as expansion of any primary utilities as needed. That's primarily what we're doing. And then the expansion of the current parking lot there. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Council Member Farmer. So what's the timeline on all this then? Potential timeline? I will say from the investor standpoint, as soon as this is done from the government standpoint, they will start with their plans, because obviously until we have the commitment from the government in order to proceed, they don't want to expend with architectural. And I will say that they already have an agreement with all the people that will be doing construction on the site that they are donating, I think it was 20% of their time, so that the cost is even less for them, but the building is actually going to be worth a lot more. So would we be showing our interest in this and our support of it by giving $150,000 a day and telling the mayor to put $150,000 in the next budget, or is this $300,000 today on the barrelhead? I think we need $300,000 today in order to move forward as quickly as possible. That's correct. The extent of the project, there's no good stopping point in starting. I mean, once you get the dozer on site and get all the equipment there and so forth, might as well go ahead and get it done. Because if you're trying to stop at some point, and again, as I said, there's no easy place or good place to stop it, then you're going to have to pay additional fees for remobilization and so forth. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I've thought a lot about this, and I've known about it for some time. And the $300,000 seems like a lot of money for us at this point. But here's an opportunity for us to say to our citizens that if you can help us, we'll build the foundation. and I think the idea that this kind of money has come into this project because of what we've been able to do and the support that Council Member Scutchfield has provided is something that we ought to reward our citizens for doing this. And so I can very enthusiastically support this and I think it shows us a new direction of the kinds of things that we can do with citizens' help. Thank you. Are there any other comments? All right. Seeing none, we'll get the electronic voting for item 42, which is the 300,000 site prep for the Woodhill project. All those in favor, please log in. Yay. Those opposed, nay. Okey-doke. That passes. All right. Thank you, Laura. And number 43 is, do you have a number for the Mount Tabor sidewalks? Council Member Scutchfield. Yes, I do. 1.57. Million? Million? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Are there any motions? I am going to move because I have business owners in the area that definitely want this sidewalk, and it starts a conversation. We have a lot of areas in Lexington that do not have connectivity to the residences and the businesses around them. And I know I spoke to our commissioner about this, and there's a lot of costs that goes into road upgrades, including bike lanes, which several of us are very much in favor of the bike lanes, curbs, gutters. And I know this is an expensive project, but these are the projects that get our people to businesses to spend money. And so even though I'm going to make a motion right now and I know what the result is going to be, I want us to think about this as we go forward, building budgets, that this is how we build Lexington and increase business. So I'm going to make a motion to approve. Do I hear a second? That motion dies for a lack of second. Is there any other motion about this item? Good afternoon, Mayor. Mayor, I mean, Vice Mayor. Yes. May I make a motion to include this in the mayor's budget? Second. I hear a motion and a couple of seconds to put this item on a list to request the mayor to include in his budget. 1.570, is that correct? Million. Is there a discussion? Council Member Farmer. Would this amount include sidewalks for both sides of Mount Tabor? Is there any other discussion? Council member, uh-oh. Commissioner? Welcome back. I'm not sure if it would at this point, but I think as a first step, maybe the amount that we could, she might, instead of the 1.5, would be design, which then could go to this. This is in the NPO process, and it is ranked in there at like 25, so we can get you the details of what all that entails. Just looking through the list of the NPO projects, it just says curb and gutters, you know, a turn lane and sidewalks at this point, but we can get you those details. And I think, again, rather than the full 1.5, because we know we have to do design first, it might be something we can do with that. And again, looking at the NPO process and how we can speed that up as well as including sidewalks in general uh you know creation and not creation but replacement of sidewalks and just putting sidewalks when we don't have them that should be more of a priority for the mpo this year so we will get you that information thank you very much councilmember k thank you commissioner uh you may not know this but um where this would ranks now on the list of sidewalk projects in the MPO list? I'm not sure that they don't really necessarily have them ranked as sidewalk projects but in terms of projects that have sidewalks this may be one of the the top projects that includes sidewalks as well. I'm not so sure that there are 24 projects in front of them that include sidewalks. Several of the projects are are lane widening you know added added lanes in general but but we can get you the list of which pull out from that list. The MPO list itself I think there are about 90 different projects ranked on there and in that this is at number 25 Thank you So I'm not going to support this motion because I believe we ought to look at the whole list There's a lot of places that need sidewalks and to allocate this amount of money without doing a minimum amount of comparison I think would be a mistake So I'll vote no. Thank you Councilmember Massadi. Thank you Derek Just a follow-up question. How quick does this, since it's on the MPO list, would this be done? Do you have any idea? No, and I'm trying. I've got the list in front of me right now, and I'm not sure that we can give a – to give you – and this, I'll just tell you. New Circle Road is listed as number eight, and that's a $32 million project. And then there's New Circle Road to I-75 widening. That's a $38 million project. So this is – those are 20 places almost in front of it. And so I think it does come down to the five-year road plan and how we can try to put some of those. Not all of the big projects are done, obviously, in sequential order, because sometimes it is easier to fund a $1.6 million project than a $38 million project. So you said you're going to send us a list. There is a published list. I can send you this whole document that includes the entire list. It's the MPO. This is the MTP 2040 plan, which we just approved not that long ago. So I can make sure that that gets to all council members, and you can see the full list. I think number one on the list is New Circle Road, $26 million. So it's on there several times. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Mayor. Derek. There are also MAP funds for alternative transportation possibly that we could use. There are not necessarily MAP funds, but there are other funds that are for transportation alternative grants. We do submit for TAP grants, and we've submitted multiple. Sometimes we submit trail projects through this as well. So there are multiple ways that we can go about doing this. I think that's what the whole MPO process is, is to try to rank these programs and then to try to not just list them all out but then rank them in terms of importance. Obviously, this is the tough part where you've got major road projects such as New Circle Road butting up against sidewalk projects at the same time. So that's why we do try to look for alternative funding, be they TAP, be they other forms such as air quality grants. So there's other ways we can do it, and we try to do it those ways. But, again, MAP funds can be used for, I believe, just for sidewalks as well. So this is where if we're going to look at sidewalks alone, this is where we've been talking about having a separate, you know, how do we identify the locations for where we need sidewalks and then come up with our own ranking as well so that we can put some of our own skin in the game, not just along these types of projects where it's larger projects. Right. And as we were talking earlier about parks, we all know there's specific needs there, and we assess the areas, plan it out, and we should do the same with this. Right. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Ellinger's issue is another one. Council Member Akers to the motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I cannot support it either. I agree with Councilmember Kay and others that I think we need a strategic plan for the entire city. In my neighbor district alone, Leastown Road inside New Circle does not have any sidewalks that adjoins three different shopping centers. Mercer Road that has lots of jobs and lots of manufacturing at UPS and Amazon and other factories has no sidewalks. and I see people walking all the time. Greendale Road, I see people walking. So it's a problem. I agree that the entire city, but we need to look at it as a whole and then rank them, and then with, you know, while looking at the MPO and all of those lists. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on the motion? So the motion is to approve 43 to go to, now I believe the motion is an amendment, correct, to put it on the mayor's list. I think it was a motion. The original motion died for like a second. So this is to place it on the mayor's list for the budget. So all those in favor, please log in. Aye. Or yay. Those opposed, no. Okay. Has everyone voted? That motion fails. Five to eight. Thank you. Okay. Now, Council Member Ellinger has another motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to... I mean another issue. Excuse me. I know we passed to go down to the three items that the administration had brought forward. Have we made a motion to put that on our list yet? I don't think we did. We did. Did you make that motion? Okay. So they are 44, 45, and 46 then? Okay. Just wanted to make sure that was done. All right. Then let's move on. That being the case, then I would like to, for number 44 of the courthouse, move to the 450,000. Second. All right. We have a motion. That is number 44. we have a motion to approve 450,000 allocation to the old courthouse county the old Fayette County Courthouse schematic design any questions about the motion council member okay council member Kay is yours to the motion okay council member Beard can you take your hey vice mayor we have presently $250,000 in this study all of it hasn't been expended yet I don't believe we're going to add another $450,000 so we're going to talk about $700,000 before we actually get a chance to scrape any lead paint or whatever needs to be done under mayor Isaac's administration they did a study and it was 16 million dollars to bring it up to snuff during the Newbury administration that number went to 18,000 18 million dollars Did I say a thousand? God knows what it would be now. And where are we going to get the money? The bonding, we're bonded up to our ears at this point. We sure as heck can't get it out of fund balance. Where are we going to get the money? it would be nice. It would be great. I worked next door to it for years and years and years. And it's, from a distance it looks very nice, but it's not. And we need to rethink, I think we need to rethink the whole situation of the courthouse. There are times when it's the fourth courthouse that we had in Fayette County. Things happen to courthouses for some reason. And it's a naughty problem, and if we keep on adding to it by this type of study or that kind of study or schematic design or whatever, it's just going to run the dollars up. So I can't support it. And I would love somebody to tell me exactly what, how we're going to get the money to do what's necessary to bring that up to the stage. It needs to be safe, usable. and we can use 18 million dollars a lot of other places around here councilmember beard there are a few people here who might have an answer the CAO or jump sheet or Jeff any of them one point okay CAO Hamilton I think your question is certainly a well-placed question and one which I can't answer unequivocally yet. But what we're going to do is we're going to come back to you after the first of the year, at the end of January is when we really are going to know our numbers. We're going to come back to you and talk to you about the type of restoration in there we think we ought to do. You can go full bore and really run this thing up. to very very expensive but we're going to talk to you about various options you have in here and also various funding options some private money the staging of this this is if it if it is a if it's a 15 18 million dollar project there are certain things that we could do the first year in the in the 16-year budget and the 17-year budget very similar to what we did on the senior center but we need to bring you back information so you can see this hole before we get to that budget cycle because i think it's very important we're all on the same page and you all are the leaders on this well that does make me feel better but still at some point we're going to have to i don't know what the size of the check might be but we're going to have to write one Somehow. And we need to give you that information to let you make that decision appropriately. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer is next. Okay, with respect to the issue of the courthouse, there's several different angles. I'll do them quickly. You know, sometimes in the course of business, someone will bring me a piece of valued family jewelry that they have an attachment to over more than one generation and ask me, is this worth repairing? And on the surface of it and looking at it, it actually may not be worth repairing. It may be something that is so worn and so used and so well-loved, we can't make it any better. But there are times where even despite that, we will do our best attempt because there is such love and such interest in that piece of jewelry. I think that equates to this building. It is a dark navel in the center of the city. However, for many generations, it has a very specific place in terms of the downtown that Lexington was, the amount of activity that it used to have that it will enjoy again, and it deserves the opportunity to shine for those reasons. To the specifics of the day, though, we have put aside $250,000 to do something already. some of that has been expended, some hasn't. Can you give me kind of a T account of where we have been and where you're trying to get with these particular dollars, please? Sure, I'd be happy to, sir. So you're correct. So about this time last year, we're having a very similar discussion. It was $250,000 that was set aside for fund balance to proceed on some work. And what I'm looking forward to is after Thanksgiving, when they're done sweeping out the courthouse is we should actually be able to walk you guys through for the first time in quite a while. And the building is actually vacant. There's been some selective demo. There has been some remediation as part of that demo, and Jamshie could speak more to that if needed. And so what the 110 that has been expended, well, committed, shall I say, it's under contract. and actually next week I believe, John Shee, there's going to be a change order for a little bit more, which will be for actually drilling into and doing probing of the building to understand the structural challenges that it has. So overall, is the building solid? Yes. Are there pieces of stone on it that may not be? Yes. And so that's what we're trying to understand now. So there's, we don't have all the answers right now. So what we know right now is sort of the general shape of the problem. And in January, we'll know the shape and the size of the problem. And so we'll be able to come back with a lot more information and give that to you. We expect to have around 100,000 of the 250 left. That's anticipated in this ask. So the idea is that what has been requested would basically allow us to keep moving after January and bridge us to July. Should it be a pleasure of the council to do that? and that the next budget cycle would be, as the CAO pointed out, that would be the serious budgeting looking ahead to how are we going to do this in the long run. So the $400,000 is to allow us the momentum so that there's seriousness about the building, that the city's making a commitment to moving us forward, that we can have serious conversations with potential tenants because they're going to wait and see. And so if we come to a standstill in February and don't come back until July, we can't have any serious conversations in the spring because the question will be out there, are you or aren't you? And so I think that's, there's a lot of intense, I think was the adjective that by, or that CAO used discussion to be had in July or January. So you're saying you've still got $100,000 to spend, that you're going to expend in some capacity. that it would be available to spend it you guys will have to allow us to do so all right and then the 450 becomes what exactly what's that you're asking are they asking this piece of papers for 450,000 dollars for schematic design schematic design actually anticipating that would be closer to half million schematic design and had this conversation with councilmember Lane yesterday that is your most expensive option in February so in January we're gonna have a lot more information for you given the conversations we've had this council has wanted to keep moving on the courthouse when wanting to make progress building second getting any younger it's continued to deteriorate and one of the key things we're gonna have in January is staging options what do you do first what must be done to keep the building from getting any worse What must be done or would you be wise to do all together so that you can make the building better? And eventually what do you need to do to get the building to a place where someone's willing to come in and make private investment? To the interior and be able to fit it up so that the building is both Shining as a jewel but also useful as a building. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. I would I appreciate the answer in its form personally I would put a lot of emphasis on I have great respect for council member Lane and his ability to understand transactions as they relate to real estate and there may be votes on this council for this for this building and this project I just I wish I had more confidence in us getting it done because I don't have that today thank you thank you council member Lane I think that Council Member Farmer has made a good point is that the urban county government has done a woefully inadequate job of protecting the courthouse building and to let it sit there and have water infiltration come in and start rusting the steel in the building to weaken the structure I think is just terrible and our failure to properly maintain and manage the building is It's going to cost the taxpayers extra dollars because we've got to go in and do remediation to repair that before we can even remodel and rebuild the building. But I think we also have to look at it as a centerpiece of our downtown area. It's right in the heart of downtown. It is a premium real estate location and appropriately renovated. renovated, it should attract some quality tenants to move into that building. And I think that we should be able to generate some funding through grants and tax credits, et cetera, that be available for historic buildings. I was concerned about the $450,000 because of the term in there that said the next phase of systematic design. The next phase should be protecting the building from further deterioration. We need to go in and repair the roof system and make some structural repairs that are necessary to get the building back to where it is, can be safeguarded from future damage. And that would be my recommendation. I would support funding for it because if we don't spend the money today, every day that goes by, more water goes in, there's more rust, there's more damage, and the cost to renovate the building will be escalating. And we might get to a point where it would be so expensive, the building would have to be demolished, like the Ben Snyder building set vacant for so long that it became structurally unrepairable. So I think this is a serious issue, and I would encourage my council members to look at, we need to protect the building from future deterioration. That needs to be our goal. to fix the roof and make some structural repairs and not to try to redesign the building right now and figure out what we were going to do with it, but to look at preparing it and protecting it for the future development. And also I would mention, even though it's 10 years out perhaps, but it is part of the center point TIF, and as soon as the garage is paid off, that money would become available to work on the building itself. so we would have some additional future funding available through the TIF program. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That ends my comment. Thank you. Council Member Kaye. Our time clock is not working. I apologize. If you can kind of everybody keep your remarks to five minutes. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to follow up on both what Council Member Lane has said and what Council Member Farmer has said. the courthouse is right in the center of our community, and we have not really done what we needed to do to keep that as an asset. As I've been going around and talking to folks about what needs to be done, people often ask, well, what's going to happen to the courthouse? And my answer is this government is not going to let that building go, that we're going to make it right. And I believe that there's nobody on council who would be willing to say we can let that building go. We've already not done what we needed to do. I think we now have an opportunity to do the right thing. I'd like to, Jeff, if you'd come back up, I want to follow up on a question. So when I tell people that we're going to make it work, they say, well, how are you going to make it work? And I think you've already heard at least some concern about if we invest this money, are we likely to actually be able to move forward? Do you see a path forward? How likely is it? Can you speak to that? Right. Perfect. The answers at the moment are fuzzy, and I'll admit that, right, which is that we don't have all the answers now, but we're going to have a lot more of them in the coming couple of months. and so the anticipation here is that with a building that's deteriorating, it's not as simple as, oh, well, if we do it in July versus February, we're just behind a few months. The situation is that if what we do is we come to a full stop in February, we can't even restart sort of the conversations about how are we going to move this forward until really until the fall. And so we're putting, and then knowing that to actually get to a point, so yeah, we may be able to start doing roof repair, but if we're actually going to undertake the full renovation of the building, and when I say that, that's really just talking about the shell, the roof, putting the building back to a place where it is stable for another 100 years. That's probably an 18-month construction process, and it's probably 12 months to get us to start of that, right? So now we're talking about years out to actually getting completion. And so I think the real question, maybe the short answer I'm looking for is, are you optimistic that with this investment we will be in a position to market that building and put some folks in it and have it return to full function for the community? Yes. And the optimism is that there are both institutions and groups within the community that have basically invited a proposal for them to be asked to be part of it. So that's the first part of it, right? So there is optimism that, yes, there are people who want to be part of that building, that want to lease that building, that want that location. However, no one will be able to undertake fixing the building, the structure itself. What they will be able to undertake, hopefully, is fitting it up inside, right? Right. And so if we separate out the two and think about that, if it's the city's building, if you're the landlord, you've got a building you've got to fix, get it to a white box, and then we've got folks that we can continue to talk to in the coming months and get them excited about coming in to the white box and making the use make sense. see. Okay. I think that's helpful to me. And I believe this is an investment that we absolutely need to make and we need to make it right now. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council members, we have 15 minutes and four people who wish to speak. So we're going to need to schedule another meeting. The four of you, if you want to split the 15 minutes that we have left, and we might be able to vote on this item, but we'll need to take some time to figure out when we can meet again. So, Council Member Masati, do you want to speak? I'll be real quick. Half a million dollars is a lot of money. I don't have, I don't feel comfortable today voting on what I've been told so far because I think there's a lot of things that Council Member Lane has said that has been brought to my attention that we need to do, and I just don't feel comfortable with what has been presented today. So I would move that we would continue this meeting on with this particular item to possibly next Thursday at, say, 4 o'clock. There's three people on the list to speak. You're wanting to cut off and continue next week? Yes. Okay. I'll make the motion that we move the rest of this discussion until 4 p.m. next Thursday. In the meantime, maybe, Mr. Fugit, you can bring us a little bit, something more detailed, at least for me, on specifics as far as how you're going to go forward on this project. Okay. Excuse me. I'm so sorry. There's a motion on the floor to approve $450,000 for the old Fayette County Courthouse design. So I think your motion would be more appropriate after we do something with the motion that's on the floor. I'm sorry to cut you off that way but we've got to take care of the motion on the floor Okay, can we also ask him to bring that information forward to us? More specific information on what he intends to do as far as this project Can you bring more specifics? And I don't think you need to speak to it because we're really running out of time but if you can bring a few more specifics No? Yes, thank you Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would vote for this, but I have some of the same concerns. It's a little fuzzy, CAO and Jeff. What are we buying for $450,000? That's what I don't understand, and I'm not going to ask for any further explanation because I think our hearts are in the right place, and I trust you to do the right thing. Let me put it that way. But I do think the problem with some of us are what are we buying for $450,000? Even though I'm going to support it, I'm doing that with the trust in our leadership. Thank you, Vice. Councilmember Farmer, are you on again? Councilmember Ellinger hasn't spoken to it. Could we go to the folks who haven't spoken? Councilmember Ellinger? Oh, yours is something else. Councilmember Henson? And then we'll go back to Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice. Mayor, and so we're speaking to the motion, and I would move to amend the motion to place this item on the hold list until we can get further information. There's a motion on the floor to place this item on the hold list for further information. Yes, it's an amendment. Is there a second? Okay, the motion dies for a lack of second. Do you have any other comment, Councilmember Henson? Councilmember Farmer? Mine's going to be an amendment also, and logistic in nature. I don't believe that we can convene Thursday at 4 o'clock for sure. Do you have something? Then I'll defer my comments. So the motion on the floor is to approve $450,000. Councilmember Clark are you still on to speak? Councilmember Farmer spoke. Councilmember Henson spoke. I see no one else who's on to speak to the motion. Are you Councilmember Farmer? I was going to defer my comments for Councilmember Elgar because while I am in every way supportive of this, I'm not sold and I need more time to do that and that's going to be at the beginning of the next meeting whenever it is. Thank you. Okay, thank you. and vice mayor if I could please I spoke with councilmember stin and he is a chair in the environmental quality and he said that he could do that meeting from 11 to 12 I'm chairing the budget and finance and I could do that from two to three that would give us time to to go further through this review from 12 to 2 on over 8 November 18th so I'd put that out there is that we could continue this discussion if we want at that time if we're not if we don't feel like we're ready at this point to continue with this. And I'll make that motion, but I know we have a motion on the floor right now. Right. We do. Thank you for that. Council Member Kay, are you speaking to the motion? Yes. I want to know if it's appropriate, given the time, to table this item and take it up next Thursday or whenever you... Tuesday. Next Tuesday. So I think that is an appropriate motion to table. Second. Okay, so there's a motion to table and a second to table this item until the next committee of the whole budget and finance where we'll continue this discussion. And that is a non-debatable motion. So, council members, will you please log in your vote to table this motion until the next meeting of the budget and finance council? Has everyone voted? All right. Thank you. That motion passes. The motion for item number 44 has been tabled until the next meeting. Now, I think that Council Member Ellinger has a motion regarding the next meeting. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to make a motion that for next Tuesday, November 18th, that we schedule the environmental quality meeting from 11 to 12, the special budget committee, the whole meeting from 12 to 2, and the budget and finance committee from 2 to 3. So moved. All right. We have a motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Myers, to schedule environmental quality 11 to 12 on November 18th, committee of the whole budget and finance. That will continue this discussion 12 to 2. and regular budget and finance 2 to 3 p.m. Those are all November 18th. Is there any discussion? I see none. And so, Council Members, that would mean we would continue with our list. And all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, before we adjourn, can you give us an up-to-date number, please, on what remains out of the $2.2 million? Yes, ma'am. We are currently at $962,150. So, council members, what's remaining out of the $2.2 million is $962,150. All right. Any questions about what we're doing? And I will look with the council administrator to see when to reschedule the quarterly committee of the whole, which had some important issues on it. And with that, do I hear a motion to adjourn? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Thank you very much for your patience.