The Thank you. Thank you. Council members, it's 12 o'clock, and today is November the 18th. Is that it? It is, yeah. And we are getting ready to begin our special budget committee of the whole to continue discussion of our fund balance. So we're now in session, and the first thing I'd like to do is to call on Councilmember Ellinger, who has a motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move that we go into closed session pursuant to KRS 61.8101C for the purpose of discussing potential litigation. So moved. Any discussion of the motion? it's related all those in favor please say aye anyone opposed thank you very much we're going into closed session Thank you. Do I hear a motion to come out of closed session? I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right, we are back in open session. And, Council Members, just to kind of go over what we're doing today, you should have your new packet for November 18th with the agenda. And in the packet, our council administrator has put the fund balance items that we approved, and those are on page one. And then on pages two through four are the fund balance items which the council deferred. And then page five is fund balance items referred for budget consideration. And those would be forwarded to the mayor and administration. And then page six is fund balance items removed or denied. Those were actions taken at our last meeting. So do you have any questions about that, what you've got in your packet? And the remaining fund balance of the original $2.2 million is $962,150. And so the situation is that where we left off was we were getting ready to discuss. We had done 42 and 43, Councilmember Scutchfield's items, and we were discussing the administration's requests. And so that involved, first of all, the old courthouse allocation, and then the $200,000 for community in, and the $100,000 for police over time. and we'll pause just a second here while people get their packets. Council members, just to remind you about the good work that the council administrator and Meredith, our clerk, have been doing. You can pull all this up on your screen now. The committees are in Legistar, correct? Or I legislate? Yes. So if you press agenda, ta-da. Thank you so much. We've never had our committees on the Granicus, so this is a wonderful help. You can access it there. Remember, zero waste by 2020, so that includes all the paper, right? Okay, does everybody understand where we are? We're ready to discuss the administration's requests. There are three requests. And with that, Council Member Stennett has requested to speak. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you for the opportunity to address the next three items, which are the old courthouse, the community end dollars, and the police overtime dollars. I would like to go ahead and make a motion because I think at this time to be able to take those three items. We don't have final plans on the courthouse. We had a lot of discussion last meeting. We probably still need more. There's a report due out in January that could be very helpful to determine how much money we actually need. The community end discussion, as we all know, and then the police overtime, I'm not sure when they're actually going to need it. But I would like to go ahead and make a motion to give administration the flexibility to spend up to those amounts on all three items out of the 1.6 million. And so I would make a motion to approve those three items to be spent out of the 1.6. And the administration can come back to the council when they need the dollars if all those three things happen at that time. So I move. Second. So Council Member Stenup moved and several people seconded. I think about eight seconds. Yes. is there discussion of the motion and the 1.6 just to be clear the 1.6 million that councilmember stennett mentioned is out of the unassigned fund balance 4.176 million correct yes ma'am okay so this is not out of the original $2.2 million we've been discussing, just so everybody's clear about what the motion is. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Stenet, the intention, I just want to be clear about what we're doing, is to essentially set aside those funds with the understanding that they will likely need to be need to be expended in roughly that amount of money waiting for the administration to come back and say when they need it and how much and so um the only that so that's you're shaking your head yes so i presume the answer is yes yes it is then my only question would be to the administration specifically on the on the on the courthouse um what the timeline on that needs to be? Is it going to be relatively soon? Is that something that what can we expect on that? Because I know that there's a timing issue on doing the actual work. So thank you very much and we appreciate the council's support of those three projects very much. We will be back to you for the courthouse as in late January. And We will come back with you with options there, and that was our timeline. We wanted to try to come back in late January and then tell you how we were proceeding with the $450,000. So if we're back to you then, and we know that we have your commitment for that, we will give you a plan right there in January, and hopefully you will allow us to proceed. Great. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you for bringing it forward, Councilmember Stennett, and thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Councilmembers, do you have other questions? And I know that Commissioner O'Mara was prepared to speak about the old courthouse, but it looks like we may be passing you by. You're okay with that. Anything else to the motion? Councilmember Massadi. Just for clarification, we said the motion was up to $450,000. Is that correct? Because we could decide that it's going to cost us $200,000 maybe to put a roof on until we determine how to go forward. So we really don't have a plan on that yet, correct? Yes, ma'am. We're talking about up to. Okay. And if it's not that amount or we figure that amount won't do, then we're going to come back and talk to you about that. Perfect. but we are not looking at your authorization for any more than that. Okay. Thank you. Well, and I'll just ask the commissioner, would there need to be a budget amendment brought forward? We can do it in two ways. We can bring forward a budget amendment, but that would actually allow us to go forward. If you want us to come back and get authorization, We would just wait until we had an amount certain and come to council and ask for it at that time. Either way, the council will be asked to authorize it. Okay. Thank you very much. Other questions? I see none. So all those in favor, please log in your vote and say aye. Aye. and that passes 14-0 thank you very much all right now so we will go back I believe this is the time to go back to items that were deferred The council chose to defer items 3 through 37, and those are on pages 2 through 5. There are, Councilmembers, you will recall that we voted to send Item 12, the National League of Cities member dues, to the budget to ask the mayor to include that in his budget. and you should have received a memo letter from Councilmember Ford regarding that item. It is on page 5 along with the prosecutor position, which is also on that list right now. So let's just go through our list. The remaining amount of the fund balance is $962,150 as reflected on page 1. And so starting on page two, we've taken care of the old courthouse, number 44, the 45, the community inn, and 46, the overtime. So we'll start with number three. And this is, Council Members, your names are not on this list, but yes, they are. Excuse me. This is an item from the link, excuse me. And so this was the $100,000 item to fund another small area plan. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I make a motion to move this item to be funded in fiscal year 2016 budget for consideration then. Second. So moved. Okay. I have a motion from Council Member Stenet and a second. Was that you, Council Member Farmer? I'm not a council member. Okay. To move this to the list for the fiscal year 16 budget. Any discussion? If you'll log in, please. I see none. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye and log your vote. Aye. Anybody opposed? Need one more vote? We have one person who hasn't voted, but this passes 13-0. Ed. There you go, Ed. Thank you. That passed 14-0. All right. Item 5 is the study for the location of the Splash Park in the East End. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is an item that has been talked about quite a bit, and it's a public safety issue. Right now, there are two sources of water in that general vicinity that are not supposed to be for wading or bathing, but they're used that way. And people are concerned about whether they're really safe. And so I would move that we approve the study for the splash park. Motion to by Councilmember Kay, second by Councilmember Ford to approve the $20,000 for the study of the splash park. Councilmember Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, I don't necessarily disagree with the study, but I do question that we have a concern about, obviously, the two sources that people are using for Splash Park right now. Are we going to enforce them not using that, and how will this necessarily change the use of those areas? And I think that's a serious concern that we need to address. if we spend money to have them have another place, are we going to enforce not using those? Okay, thank you. Council Member Akers. I think that the splash park is a great idea. My question, I guess, is for someone in parks or general services about the need for the study. Do we not have the capacity within the division to identify property that the city owns or available land and negotiate that without spending $20,000 to figure that out? Commissioners on the move. Welcome, Commissioner Reed. Thank you. Thank you so much. during the last budget cycle, we requested money for a splash pad, and the council felt that it was appropriate that we look at alternative sites. And we had been focusing on the downtown area, and there was some thought that maybe this ought to be in some other location besides downtown. and that's why funding was requested for the specific study. We certainly have the ability to make a determination of where a splash pad is, where we could suggest one go and make it part of the budget cycle. My concern here is if we do the study, the study is going to take some time and we may not have a recommendation by the time we start the budget process. So I would probably prefer that we internally do the splash pad study. This leads to a bigger question I just want to touch on real quickly, and that is we need an overall outside comprehensive look at aquatics as a whole. Yes. And we've been looking at that some. Yes. And getting a baseball figure to you in the neighborhood of $150,000 would fund a complete aquatic study look, including future locations for splash pads, what we need to do with our pools, do we need to do an indoor. So I throw that out as a more costly alternative, which probably isn't wise, but give us nothing or give us 150, I guess is what I'm saying. Does anyone have questions for the commissioner? Councilman Breakers, were you? I mean, I think that's very helpful. I guess I would ask Councilmember Ford and Kay and others that have their hands on that area what your thoughts are about just selecting a site and building it next year versus doing a study next year and building it in the following year. Thank you. Councilmember Kay. Well, I think this is something that we've tried to get done because it's a present problem. I think we do need a splash pad. And to respond to Councilmember Scotchfield's question, I believe if there's an alternative that is safe and healthy, that that's where people will go and they'll take their children. Right now they're taking them to places that are not because there is no other place. can we prevent people even if we have a splash pad in addition from waiting in the existing water sources i don't think we can but this would cut down on the number it might eliminate the number it would certainly cut down on the number and it would give people a healthy alternative so i'd be in favor of moving it as i said moving it forward right now thank you council member ford thank you vice mayor and i just want to echo council member k's thought i I think that a plan will be helpful to go forward. A good example that comes to mind is our success at the Senior Citizen Center. And who would have ever thought that we would have placed it in Idaho Park? But we were able to do so after we had the analysis brought forth by good plans. So I would support this investment. Thanks, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Clark. If I'm not mistaken, thank you, Vice Mayor. If I'm not mistaken, this came out of our budget link. And I think our thought was that, number one, is a splash park the right move? Is this something we should do? And I'm not sure we were able to answer that question. And the proposal was to fund a splash park or something like it. So I think the Lynx point was to let's look at this and see if this is what we ought to do, number one. And if it is, then where should we put it? And I think that's an important question. And I'm not sure that we are ready to say, all right, it needs to go here. Maybe we are. But I think I just want to refer to the budget links discussion about this, and that's the reason it's here to begin with. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, this doesn't build the splash park. at all. Okay. You know, I like to learn from our past mistakes and maybe grow on those. You know, we spent a lot of money trying to find a location for our senior assistant center and we turned around and did it in-house. We should have done that all along. And this is the same deal. We can do this in-house. We don't need to hire or spend $20,000 or figure out a location. We have expertise in-house that can do this very easily. So I won't be supportive of it. I'll be supportive of getting a splash pad and a design done. But I think, you know, we have a couple of people in this room that can actually do this and get it done and do a good job. And we want to spend $20,000. Do you disagree? No. Thank you. Councilmember Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I agree, and I think I said this when we met last week in this committee, that I think overall there are many, many needs in parks. There are splash pads needed in other areas as well. And so you're saying for $150,000, we could do the entire city? I'm saying we could study the aquatics needs of the entire community. Right. Splash pads, indoor facility, do we need to close some pools, do other alternatives, just a complete comprehensive look. And I couldn't agree more that that's what really needs to happen. Just like I had mentioned, we need each of our parks assessed for their needs and to come up with a long strategic plan or whatever to address those needs. So I'm not supportive of doing this study just for one area, but if you can determine. I know in certain areas of my districts, children have been playing in Vons Branch or Wolf Run Creek, and we posted signs in areas adjacent to the park or whatever that it is really not environmentally safe to play in the stream, unprotected. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. but I won't support this. Thank you. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I would echo the commissioner's point that what we really need is an aquatics plan, and that's one of the things I've been saying the 10 years I've been on the council, and hopefully as I go off, maybe in January we'll start that process. But what will it take to do that? what will it take to do the aquatics plan? Is that something that you have to spend? The council authorizing it and giving us money to do it. But is that money needed for outside, or is that just a person's time putting together a plan? I think we have an outside group undertake a study that large and that comprehensive that has experience looking at other locations and cities with a similar size and similar issues to ours. I do not think that is an in-house project that would be of long-term use. Okay. So, okay, I'll hold the rest of my comments for later, but thank you. I agree that we need to get a narcotics plan done, and maybe we can come up with something later on this afternoon to make that happen. Thank you. Council Member Clark. I would certainly agree that we need a full study. And so if we don't fund the $20,000, then are we ready to fund something in its place to study the entire aquatic program, which I would certainly agree that's what we need more than a study for a splash park. Is that what we intend to do? And then the second question, Commissioner, if we don't do the study and we're ready to build a splash park, is that going to be in the budget and are we going to do that? I would recommend, and I can't speak for what the mayor will include in his recommendation, But I certainly don't think building a single additional splash park would be in conflict with whatever an overall comprehensive plan would be. And since I've been here and we've discussed it within parks, splash parks are terribly popular in other communities, terribly popular in Louisville. And I would recommend funding one in the next budget cycle. Good. That's what I need to know. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, I guess what I'm thinking about is there's a lot of need in parks, right? Yes, sir. And I don't know how difficult it is to put together an aquatics plan, but what if we looked at this from the perspective of maybe hiring someone to work in parks to do this type of work rather than spending that $100,000 outside to do consultant work but still only get one plan where we've got a whole lot of things that need to be done in parks. What if we looked at it from hiring expertise inside of parks that moving forward can help us put together an aquatics plan, a parks master plan to address the individual parks within districts, et cetera, et cetera? I certainly think that's an alternative. I don't think that's the model that's used in a lot of places. I think you need a cross-section of skills in a study like that. Now, can one person solicit others and pull in people like the University of Kentucky who has an interest in this, and from EKU, perhaps. But, again, you're going to have a time frame problem there of getting somebody, getting them familiar, getting other components. You're going to have no idea of the quality of the product that you're going to get as opposed to bringing in somebody with a proven track record of doing these things. That would be my argument and response. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Any other questions, comments? We have a motion on the floor to approve number 5 for $20,000 for the study for the splash park. I'm sorry, one more. Okay. Just to clarify. My understanding is that the motion and what we have before us is for location determination, design, and planning. It's not just figure out where to put it. That's correct. It's also for design. Yes. Any other questions or comments? Okay, all those in favor, please say aye or log in. All those opposed, nay. Okay, that motion fails, 3 to 10. Okay. Number 15 is a recommendation from Council Member Akers. It's a $78,000 item. And do you want to speak to this, Council Member Akers? Yes, ma'am. I would like to make a motion to amend the amount. In the prior meeting, we discussed a lot about the capacity of parks and their lengthy list of items we're still working on. And so I would ask the council to, instead of considering the full amount, to fund the entire length of the trail to just fund Phase 1, which would be $44,900. So moved. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. The motion is to amend the amount to $44,900, and that would be for the trail for Phase 1. Any discussion? Well, we actually, yes, discussion on the motion. Okay. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Given the previous vote and given what we have now on the rest of our list, which are all parks projects, I'm wondering if we ought not to take the balance that we have available to us, allocate it to parks, and ask parks to come back with a priority list of what we ought to be funding. We can modify it, but rather than walk through one at a time and try to figure it out, that we get a little more information. And I can't make that motion. You have a motion on the floor, but I would encourage council to vote this one down with the understanding that it's not rejecting that, but making the space for another motion. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Are the rest of you signed up to speak to the motion? Council Member Akers, you're back on. No, it didn't remove me when I finished. Okay, Councilmember Scutchfield, are you back on? Councilmember Henson? No. Not to the motion. Okay. Well, I do have a question. Councilmember Clark, to the motion. Yes, I would like to remind all of us that Parks is not only willing to do whatever they can do, but also have limitations to what they can do. And so I was very concerned when we started going one by one on this list, and I would agree with Council Member Kay that we should simply allocate a part of this or all of this to parks and let them make decisions about what they can do with a certain amount of money. And I would prefer that, and I think in that case we should vote this down, although it's a very worthy project, and then start from scratch. Thank you. You're welcome. The motion on the floor is simply to change the amount of money on number 15. It's not to approve it. Correct, Councilmember Akers? That's correct, yes. It's actually reducing it, so I think that would be a positive. So, Council Member Hanson. My comments are not on the motion. Okay. All right. Does anyone else want to comment on the motion to decrease the amount on 15 to 44,900 for phase one of the Highlands Multipurpose Trail? Okay. All those in favor? I can. Did you want to speak? Okay. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree, and I said this in the last meeting, that I think you put a certain amount of money into the pot and let the Parks and Rec decide what's shovel-ready, and we moved down that list, and this is the list that we wanted to look through, and then they work through what's available and what they can get done, and that way they just have a pot. We don't have to try to keep going through a neat saying, because I think they're all good projects. And as an at-large member, they're all in my district. so at least for the next month and and I think that what I said last time and I agree with council member Kay and I'm not against this when I'm for it but I'm probably gonna vote this down and then support going just I should do this one for you and then no I'm saying but we're not voting to approve this we're just reducing the money so actually lowering the money allows for more money for other projects if we do group them in another motion later. So just hold off for the moment. Is she ready? Yeah, I'm finished. Okay. All right. Anyone else wish to speak? Okay. All those in favor of reducing the amount to $44,900, vote aye. All those opposed, nay. And we're having an electronic vote. We need a couple more votes, please. okay now okay that motion passes mayor excuse me vice mayor i did vote but it didn't register okay yay it's what was your vote he said yes okay yay okay so that motion passed 13-0 Now, is there anything else on the floor for 15, or do we want to move in a different direction? Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to support what Council Member Kaye has said. I think if we're doing it this way, and it would also depend upon where you are on the list of your possibility of getting funded. So I wanted to ask what our current balance is and make a motion based upon that for parks. Do you have a motion? And I would also comment that I know that from the 2013 fund balance, $80,000 for Valley Park was approved for the parking lot, and it just began, like, last week. The asphalt plants are going to close before because of the weather. But just to give you an idea, I think they better know what they can do moving forward. Do you have a total for us, Stacey? Yes, it hasn't changed. It's 962,150. Because we've won. The three items approved were not out of this balance. Yes, one got moved to the budget. So same total as on page one. All right, next up to speak is Council Member Scutchfield. And I agree with Council Member Henson, especially because if we don't give it to parks, I think what we should do is have each council member provide their number one priority and go down the list so that we don't go in a falsely created list of priority, if that makes sense. But I do. I think, you know, giving it to parks. I know the parks board has talked about being willing to rank items. for the parks board priority so thank you i don't want council member k oh council member lane yes i also wanted to agree i think uh council member k's suggestion that we have the parks rate these opportunities based on you know ability to complete the work and the priority etc and the amount of money we have available is the best approach because i think it's very difficult for council members to vote on a lot of different park projects we don't know that much about anyway so i i would support that also um council member stennett thank you vice mayor and i certainly appreciate the conversation but i in no way would agree to putting 962 thousand dollars go ahead and agree in principle i think you know that would be unwise financially not to keep some money in a fund balance especially given the number of rainy days we seem to keep having over the years I think it would be unwise so I would be more apt to if I know there's a couple projects on there especially mine number 29 that's shovel ready that's being held up because this money's not there I think mystery would agree to me that if he gets the additional money they can go ahead and move forward I would like to figure out there's any projects like that from any other council members that can actually go today with this funding and look at those and then the 2013 fund balance list we haven't updated those the status of those projects one of which is being held up again number 29 because we need a little bit more money so i wouldn't be supportive of putting the whole lump sum to parks i think we should hold on to at least half a million we don't know what's going to come over the course the next six months and be ready for any rainy days coming forward so i'll make a motion to approve number 29 is there a second sorry did not make a motion no she did not she didn't talk Thank you, Shavala. So there's a motion and a second to skip down and approve number 29. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, there was a second by Council Member Akers. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Question, is Council Member Akers' original motion still on the floor? Her original motion was to change the amount of money. but we didn't vote on that item we did vote on that we did not vote okay okay thanks a different amount of money now yes ma'am thanks now let me ask everybody who's signed up are you signed up to the motion to speak to the motion yeah yes yes okay council member myers i had another issue but i do have a question now that you mentioned that and that is um is this project shovel ready Can someone come to the microphone? Okay. Okay. Thank you. And, Council Members, I want to remind you in your packet, I don't know that you brought it, from last week there was a column telling everything that is either shovel-ready on the parks list or not on the parks list. If you have your packet from November 13th, all this information is on there. It also includes whether these things are in the park's long-term plan or short-term plan. Actually, Councilmember Stennett, for number 29, the Pleasant Ridge Park upgrades, the packet from last week says completion is expected within six months, but it's not in the parks plan. I mean, those are two different issues. I don't know if someone could get this again for council members, this list that shows which ones are shovel-ready and which ones are not. Okay. Okay. Mr. Lane, did you want to speak to the motion? So in the gray area, I'll just pass. Okay. You can be on for another issue. Council Member Masati. To the motion. Council Member Henson. To the motion. Council Member Kay. Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. I really have only one question about this, and that is, how many other council members have items just like this that they want to propose one or more of? Because it seems to me if we have a large number of those, we ought not to do it. If we have a small number, let's look at them, take them one at the ones that are, the council members believe are shovel ready, take them one at a time, and then take the balance and do what we want with it. Is it possible to get an answer to that question? I saw Council Member Masati indicated you have one or more that you would like to propose in the same way. Are there other council members who have items that they would want to, again, move off this general list and move on today? I see heads shaking, yes. So apparently there are some. and by the way on the screen the right hand column is as good of information about shovel ready etc ok well given that there are a number and I don't know how many there are really but a number I would simply request that we not do repeat what I said that we not do this on a piecemeal basis and that we not take them one at a time because it's just too hard to do and we don't have them in perspective, even shovel ready or not, in comparison to the other projects that are proposed. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the motion to approve number 29, which is $20,000 for Pleasant Ridge Park upgrades? Councilmember Lane. Okay. I move from gray to black now. All right. I concur with Councilmember Kay again here in that there's I mean I got the impression from other comments we've made in previous meetings that the Parks Department probably can't do all these projects anyway because there's more than they can handle in a short period of time so it would be very valuable I think to get some input back from them about what projects they can get done and what they consider to be priorities. At the same time, I support the position of Councilmember Stinnett is that I don't think we need to spend all this money on parks. Maybe we just give them a portion of it. I wouldn't be opposed to putting more money in the Rainy Day Fund. We could never have enough money in there from my perspective, so maybe we put another payment into the Rainy Day area. But I think we're moving in the right direction. Maybe we could all compromise and put some money into parks let them tell us where to go, and then we can put some in the rainy day fund. Thank you. Did you say let them tell us where to go? Well, they'd be like our constituents, too. Okay. Councilmember Massavi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In reference to the list on November, I guess it's 13th, there are two projects, number 29 and 25, that looks like they could be completed in six months. So I would like to amend Councilmember Stinn's motion and add number 25 from Councilmember Henson's district, which is the $9,000 expenditure for the plastic spiral slide to be installed at the existing playground in Pine Meadows Park. So moved. Okay. We have a motion by Councilmember Massadi, second Councilmember Farmer, to amend the motion and to include expenditure of $9,000 for item number 25. And is there discussion on the amendment? Council member, now, are those of you who are signed up to speak to the amendment? Council member Henson to the amendment? No. Council member Stenet? Yes, ma'am. Yes. I would invite anyone else that actually can have Park say their project is shovel-ready to put it on the list. and let's hear about it because a lot of these are not i've asked parks a lot of you just have budgets down for projects that could happen if the money was there but you're not shovel ready there's a big difference so i would invite as councilman massadi is the one to add it to it if they're actually shovel ready can mr reed come forward anyone else councilmember meyers did you want to speak to the amendment yeah okay um councilmember massadi to the amendment yes ma'am Could we ask Commissioner Reed to come forward and let us know if they're, by looking at this list, and I hate to put you on the spot, but I guess I am. Can you advise if there are any other requests that are six months or shovel ready, and then we know which ones we could add to this list? If we could walk through this together so we're all talking about it at the same time. One thing before we start talking that we've been kicking around are not only what's shovel-ready and what's not, but what's simple and what's difficult. It plays a big role into your time frame and what you can accomplish within a short amount of time. We were looking at some of these tennis and basketball resurfacing projects, and we could group those into one big project and contract them out, and I think there's five of those. And I would suggest that you consider taking a look at those as one. I think it's 16, 22, 31, 35, and 36, and consider funding some part of those or some number of those, and we can really do that as one, and we can get that completed within a six-, eight-month time frame without any difficulty. And that spreads around, you know, the parks that are touched. And that's just a thought. And now I'm happy to go through the projects. obviously. Am I doing it? Well, may I just interject? The only two projects that state that they could be fixed in six months are the two that are on your amendment. Just so everybody's clear, the rest are 12-month or 18-month. That'll save you some heartburn looking through that list. And who are the blank? So, council members, we have a motion to amend and a motion on the floor and we have a great suggestion from the commissioner to discuss so shall we dispense with the motion first the motion is to amend the main motion and include number 25 uh nine thousand dollars to for a one piece 360 degree plastic spiral slide on the existing playground in Pine Meadows Park. There's no slide there. That's the amendment to add that to the motion. And all those in favor, please say aye or log in. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. So the main motion on the floor is to approve then numbers 25 and number 29, both of which are expected that they could be completed in six months. Any discussion of the main motion? Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think it appears that the five that you mentioned could also be done in the six-month period, so I would have... Can we do it separate? We can do it separate. That's fine. I'll wait to that one. Okay, that's fine. I agree with you. Anyone else to the motion? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye and log in your vote. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes 13-1. So that approves number 25 and number 29. Now, Commissioner, Can you, I've had some requests for you to slowly state the numbers which involve paving that you think could be done fairly quickly, if you don't mind. 16. Okay. It's tennis at Metathorpe. 22 is basketball at Lou Johnson Park. 31 would provide some work for some courts at Shillitoes for $20,000. 35 is tennis courts at Waverly. And 36 is basketball court at Waverly. Okay, so just again, that was 16, 22, 31, 35, and 36. And those all involve paving of some sort. And the beauty of that is we can contract and they can be done once the asphalt plants reopen, could be worked on, if not simultaneously, very close together, and you could move them all. And so that's about $200,000 worth-ish of paving. Okay. Now, I have a few people on the list. Council Member Henson, you're up next. There's no motion on the floor right now. You're on the list to speak. Did you want to speak? No. No. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to make a motion that number 16, number 22, number 31, and number 35, and number 36 be allocated, or the amounts being, I don't know what all the amounts are, but those items be added to the, I guess, our balance and supported. So moved. Okay. Okay, Councilmember Massadi moved and Councilmember Akers seconded to approve allocations for 22, 31, excuse me, 16, 22, 31, 35, and 36. And those are all paving and have a successful chance of being finished within six months. Okay, Councilmember Ellinger says that's $160,028. All right. Councilmember Massadi, did you have something else to the motion? No, ma'am. Anyone want to speak to the motion? Okay, I see no one. All right. All those in favor, please say aye or log in. Anyone opposed? That motion passes 14-0. Thank you, Commissioner. That was an excellent idea, excellent suggestion. They do good work. So I might ask our council administrator if you have an updated total for us before we go on. Yes, ma'am. It's $773,122. 773122. Yes. Okay. All right, council members. I am open for any other motions. Otherwise, we can, I might ask the commissioner. We've taken care of pretty much the projects on this list for parks that could be done within a six, seven-month time frame. So what's your assessment? There are quite a few that say 12 months and quite a few. Some of these we will be requesting probably funding for in the next budget cycle. Okay. I do think the Zandale Bridge is something that we could get done in a, not within six months, but certainly within a year. The neighborhood has given a great deal of support for that project. Number 27. Number 27, I would suggest that you consider that project. Do you know of any others on here where neighborhoods are working with parks that they could potentially be completed in the next 6 to 12 months? Sandell is the only project that we have had active neighborhood participation in. they actually provided the architectural plans. One of their residents is a registered architect and provided the plans free of charge to the Parks Department. So that's why that one's the only hesitation at saying that six-month project is we're not certain about the permitting. We may have to get permitting, which might delay it to be a year project. Okay. But if the council wanted to allocate money toward that, then it would be in place in case it carried over to another budget year? Okay. Okay. Was there any other project that... The other project I would mention, Wellington Park. It's not specifically the neighborhood, but the women's garden that is active in Wellington Park is one of the parties that has been requesting a shelter. The shade shelter. And they have done immense beautification of that park and put in numerous hours in that effort. Number 37? Yes. Okay. All right, now we have a, I really appreciate your all's input on these. We have Council Member Farmer up next. So we're kind of in open seating here. Yes, we are. Tell me about number 18. Replace the grill at Southland Pool. This is badly needed to support the Better Bites program. They're to focus on healthy snack options, which seems to have been a successful program to date. What will this accomplish and in what time frame? That is a very worthwhile project. The difficulty, I believe, and Michelle can fill in, is we can't disrupt what's going on in the spring and summer by tearing it up. So it's a project that we need to start later next year. I think it is a project that we would definitely be requesting funding for in the next fiscal year. But when you're talking about a completion and time frame and a short amount of time, I think it's going to be difficult to complete in a year. Well, then, from what you said, if we decide to add it to our list for 2016 budget, that would work well then. I strongly think we're going to be recommending that project in the next budget. Vice Mayor, I'd make a motion to add this to the 2016 list for the Parks and Rec to accomplish. All right. The motion on the floor by Council Member Farmer, second by Council Member Scotchfield, is to place number 18 on the fiscal year 16 budget list to go to the mayor. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Beard, is yours to the motion? Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. I've been watching this since we all convened. $95,000 for a grill. Is that a normal type of thing, or is that for brontosaurus? horses. It's the concession function within Southland Pool. It's the building. And it's my understanding it was designed to serve things like hamburgers and french fries. And the Better Bites program requires different types of processing and storage of fresh foods and vegetables and fruits. And so they don't need the heavy grease laden concession type things anymore. They want to renovate the kitchen to support a healthier diet. And then I personally know of one issue that's ADA, which is we do not have an ADA-compliant serving counter at the pool. And so that would be basically replacing a window, but there's other items like that. How do we incent the public, the children, whatever, to eat that food as opposed to do what they've done for the last 75 years or whatever? I'm not certain that's not my area, but I know that Brian Rogers has been very involved in it and can get a report to that effect. I think it's just offering them as opposed to at the same price, and they're making better choices. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, anyone else to speak to the motion? Are you to speak? Okay. So the motion on the floor is to place number 18, the Southam Pool Grill on the fiscal year 16 budget list. Go to the mayor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes, 14-0. All right. Okay. Now, Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move that we take number 23, which is the bathrooms at Berry Hill Park, which will be part of this historic 20-year build on the skate park, and move that to a recommendation for the mayor's budget for 2016. and I won't be here, and I hope that we can get support from this one full council today and that the mayor will honor that as he puts the budget together for 2016. So that being said, I move to put number 23 into the column for recommendation into the mayor's 2016 budget. Second. All right. The motion and second, and that is just the bathrooms. Concession and Pro Shop came off of that. To place that one on the list for fiscal year 16 budget, is their discussion to the motion. Council Member Clark, you went on. Are you to speak to the motion? No. Okay. I see none. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to add number 27 and number 37 per the recommendation from Parks. That's the bridge to be completed at Zandale and the shelter providing shade at the woman's recognition garden in Wellington. So moved. I have a motion from Council Member Mazzotti, second Council Member Myers, to approve 27 and 37. and I just would like to ask from the commissioner or maybe Michelle, item 27 says 18 to 24,000. Do you know what's a good number for that? The architect got... Oh, it went to 24, didn't it? Yes. All the way. Yep. Okay. Which is the higher quality flooring. Right. That was the difference. All right. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anybody opposed? We sort of got ahead of the electronic vote. Okay, 27 and 37 are approved. Vice Mayor, do you have a balance? Yes, I was just going to ask her if she has a new balance for us. $699,122. 699-122. Yes. Okay. Council Member Massadi, are you still on? I have another motion. Perhaps we should go to Council Member Akers, Clark, and Ford, who haven't spoken, and then back to you. Thank you. Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I see in our November 13th packet that we have a list of projects from Fund Balance 13 discussion that were approved, but I don't see ones that were on that list but were not funded or approved. And so I wondered if we could identify those from this current list, If there are any that were from 13 that, you know, carried over into 14 and then have now carried into 15 to maybe start some of those. So I don't know if anyone from parks knows or council members. Do you know if one of your items is a carryover from a previous fiscal year? Michelle? What I can tell you is that the items on this list carried over after, as it says on the top of the one I'm following on, which I think is similar to this, after FY15. So it was last fall's fund balance discussion. Anything that was not funded that was still a priority went to our capital request. Anything that was not funded after that remains on this list. I think this is the carryover list. This is the running carryover list. And as they get funded, we take them off. I don't. I think the council administrator can clarify for us. This list is all of the requests that were not funded in the FY15 annual budget. Yes. The FY13 list was just included as a reference of things that were approved that Parks has not yet had the capacity to complete. That was not taken. The other requests from 13 were not taken into consideration with this list. This was just things that you all recommended in the budget that there wasn't funding for. I understand. For example, I'm pretty sure that my ceiling replacement at Charles H. Quilling was on my 13 list, and then it was on my 14 list, and now it's again on my 15 list. Which number is that? So that's what I'm, that's number 17. So that's just an example, and I'm sure that others have those kinds of, you know, that we just didn't have money for, they weren't approved, and they continue to roll forward. And so that's why I just wondered if there were more of those that we could, yeah, that were older, that we could prioritize. And specifically to that one, Michelle or Jeff, and I guess I'm getting a little off topic, but that one, it says that it's not in the park's plan. But I know that it's in really bad shape. I mean, I go there. And so I just wondered, what is your all's assessment of that building and of that ceiling? And I know we've talked about dropped versus drywall and how we have to keep the dropped ceiling because of the HVAC in the ceiling. So can you all expound a little bit on what your opinion is of that and the timeline for replacement if you don't think it's needed? Sure. I don't know the details about the need to keep it for HVAC, but I know in other buildings, community buildings, we've had very poor success with dropped ceilings. They're necessary to provide comfortable acoustics. But what we've gone to is we've gone to a glued acoustic tile. So I'd like to see if we're going to expend money, I'd like to see it. And that's what I believe we got quotations on when we got this price estimate was to actually change it from a drop ceiling. Because people hang decorations and it just doesn't last long enough. So that's what I know about the details. Is it something that you think could be, if it were funded, could be completed? I do. there has been some discussion is there any revenue from that building that the neighborhood has earned that they could put toward the project because we do request that those organizations that operate the buildings and realize revenue contribute to the building upkeep I can find that out but I don't know right now thank you you're welcome Councilmember Clark thank you Vice Mayor I'd like for everybody take a look at number 28 and I'd like to ask that that be moved to the mayor's 2016 budget if we could please and just to comment about that this is a good example of of neighborhood contribution and they're able to this the western little league is able to put in half of the money they're they're ready to do that I wouldn't call it shovel ready by any means but I think if we put it, if we can put it in the mayor's budget and ask the commissioner to do that, I think that would give them plenty of time to be sure that money is there and give parks plenty of time to get ready for that. So you had a second. Yeah, I have a second. Thank you. Council Member Farmer seconded your motion. Yes. Is there discussion on the motion? That is number 28. Commissioner, do you have a comment? I thought he was calling me have to comment. I apologize, but I'll comment anyway. I would like the commissioner to comment if he would, Vice Mayor. This field will complete Cardinal Run. It's the final vacant area. And it's important that we do. It's an important project. And I know the administration will be including it in the budget request because it fills it out. When we need to make a commitment to these people that are willing to put up so much in a shared arrangement to move this forward. That's great news. Is there anyone who wants to comment on the motion to approve number 28 to go to the fiscal year 16 budget request? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All righty. That motion passes. Okay. Now, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I know that we've talked a whole lot about parks, and I want to take this opportunity to commend them for the hard work that they've placed on the fiscal year, I guess, 13 fund balance projects that they continue on right now. Vice Mayor, you alluded earlier in regards to my request for reconsideration. And if this is an appropriate time, I'd like to speak to that briefly. Council members, forgive me for being absent at the part of the meeting on last week that you guys discussed the National League of Cities. I understand that there was a motion and a second to approve it. I did forward you guys a memorandum, a letter of invitation, and also a memorandum that explains my advocacy for this project. and if it's so pleased the council vice mayor I would make a motion to reconsider and to have it appropriated under this excuse me under this fund balance so moved motion to by councilmember Ford second by council member Farmer to reconsider number 12 which is on the last page of her next to last page of today's packet the $15,000 allocation to National League of Cities membership dues. Any discussion of motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? If you log in your vote, it helps. That motion passes. Vice Mayor. Yes. Now I kindly ask that I kindly move approval of the funding. So moved. Second. All right. Is there discussion of the motion to approve number 12 to pay the annual National League of Cities dues at $15,000? And that would be half a year, correct? No, ma'am. Actually, great question. Oh, it's a calendar year. It's a calendar year. So it would begin in January of 15 to run through December of 15. And if we could have that approved in the mayor's budget, they wouldn't have to cut that check again until this time next year. If placed in the mayor's fiscal year 16 budget. Okay. As recommended. And I thank you also for your memo about that, the letter you wrote to all of us. Any discussion? Are those of you who are signed up for discussion about this motion? No. Okay, all those. Okay, Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could someone from the administration, I guess Sally, answer the question of, I know, I believe, I understand from Councilmember Ford's memo and supporting documents of the request that this was cut due to budget constraints. constraints. So I just wonder, was there anything, any other reasons why the administration did not rejoin, you know, the organization? If Councilmember Ford doesn't mind, I'll just read. Jamie Emmons is on vacation, and Jamie had especially been interested in this particular issue, and it had been discussed much in the mayor's office. So he wrote council member for an email this morning sort of explaining what his concern was about the joining of national league of cities so it's very short there were just three points and if council member ford if it's all right if i share this he said we propose not to renew the membership for the following reasons one the likely return on the investment today from what we've learned is very low, being a member. Two, the cost of fully engaging NLC are significant. Dues are a portion of that expense. Others include travel and LFUCG staff or elected official time commitments. There are also potential liabilities involved with travel, and I'm not sure what that reference is to. But number three, there are opportunities to engage in NLC initiatives without a membership. This year we engaged NLC through Glenn Brown and Larry Johnson at Partners for Youth on a violence initiative. This type of engagement may lead to justification of engaging a membership at some future date. Hope this is helpful. So those were just the comments from Jamie Emmons at the mayor's office. And he and Kevin Atkins, I think, had been especially involved with this particular issue. Okay, thank you for sharing that. I appreciate it, Sally. I'm not opposed to it because, you know, I see the value. But I did notice that it is much higher than our other dues of the Kentucky League of Cities and other organizations that we're a member of. It's almost double the highest one. So that was my question, too. Was it just a money issue or was there more to it? And so thank you for that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to speak in following up to CEO Hamilton and also express to, as I did to Jamie, and thank him for his consideration and for sharing thoughts. A few things that I want to address to Councilmember Akers is that ultimately the decisions budgetarily rest with the council. The mayor presents a budget and then the council adopts a final budget. We know that routine. This is an issue that I brought forth at our council retreat back last February. And then there are several things that I think there are benefits to the council. Councilmember Akers, I will have to disagree with you in regards to the cost of membership. On page one of my memo, it actually itemized the allocations that we remit to the Kentucky League of Cities, and I had the opportunity to meet with their new executive director, Mr. Steiner, who was very gracious in connecting me with their director, Mr. Anthony in Washington. and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, KLC, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, NLC, they're very comparative, $12,000, $13,000, $14,000, respectively. On page one of Mr. Anthony's memo, the last sentence of the first paragraph really sums up, in addition to the long memo I shared with you guys, it indicates that NLC, the National League of Cities, is the only organization that welcomes the chief elected official, that's the mayor, the governing council that would be us our city councils and the entire municipal staff as far as membership resources and opportunities that's why from the council perspective i respect jamie's position but from the council perspective i i believe just me personally that it will benefit us to resume a membership that we carry for almost three decades so council i definitely appreciate your consideration again and as for your support in moving forward thanks vice mayor You're welcome. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Clark? If I might, could I ask Council Member for to give us the benefits of being a member? I think that's important to all of us. Great. I think the resources, I think the opportunity to, there are many communities across America that face some of the similar challenges that we do as Lexington to be able to connect with our peers. again at the mayoral council and staff level will be beneficial. One of the things I was fortunate to talk to Mr. Anthony and his staff is that we're talking right now about workforce. And I learned that the National League of Cities and their advocacy for cities all across America were very, they were at the forefront in working with Congress to make sure that the new Workforce Act, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act that's going to replace WEA, allowed opportunities for localities to have a voice in going forward with those local workforce areas that we're going to be heavily involved in here pretty soon. Opportunities and resources are what we make of them, and I think that this gives us, again, an opportunity. I think the reason we stopped in 2009 was financial considerations. It was a tough time for cities all across America, but now that we're on better footing, I think it would behoove us, all council members, those that may be interested. Did anyone else want to speak to the motion? Okay, I see no one. All those in favor of allocating $15,000 for the National League of Cities annual member dues, please say aye. Those opposed? Nay. We need about 13 votes. There's one more person who'd like to vote. Okay. We have 13 people in the room, but we have, there we go. That motion passes 10 to 3. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Now, Stacey, do you mind to give us a little update, a final, not a final, but a 684,122. 684, still 122. Okay. All right. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to make a motion that we move $150,000 to parks for a full aquatic study of the entire county. So there's a motion by Council Member Massadi, second by Council Member Henson, to move $150,000 to parks for a comprehensive aquatic study. Any discussion of the motion? Council Member Myers? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner? Yes, sir. Will that get you what you need? I believe it will. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion of the motion? Councilmember Clark thank you councilmember Mossadi great motion perfect I support it thank you okay other discussion of the motion councilmember stent thank you vice-americ Commissioner Reed how is this one going to be different from the one we did in 2007 through the management partners audit they recommended closing two pools when they did a comprehensive analysis of all of our pool operations. So what do we expect to be different from that? Because we've already closed two pools in order to be more efficient. I think over the last seven years, there's been other issues that have come to the forefront regarding aquatics. I think we have to look at where we are now, revenue-wise and attendance-wise, to see if more needs to be done. in terms of creative ways to enhance revenues. Do we need to go splash park route and less pools? I get an awful lot of discussion, and I know parks people do, from the public as to the need for an indoor facility. And I think we need an independent and professional look at the advisability of that because of the cost involved. and it would be a great investment not only in money but in time of the staff. So I think those overarching issues and just where we go going forward, you know, there's been a transformational process going on in cities around the country with going away from pools and using private entities to manage the pools that you have. And I think we have to pursue the best course, and I think we need professional help and an update of what we've had to this point. And the $150,000, is that number, where did that come from, from an RFI? Director Chambers has talked to other cities who have undertaken studies of their aquatics plan, and that was a ballpark number that he was given from two locations that he had contacted. It's by no means scientific, but it is, I think, a... That's an up-to number. Yes. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Any other questions to the motion? No? I see none. The motion on the floor is to allocate $150,000 to parks for a comprehensive aquatic study. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? And if you'll log in, please. Okay. Okay. That motion passes. Council Member Clark? Vice Mayor, may I just say that takes care of the splash park study. Yes. Yes. It does. Thank you for pointing that out. Okay. Okay, so, Councilmembers, I believe there still is a balance of about, what, $534,122. Okay. Councilmember Myers, you're up next. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I want to say thank you for the aquatic study. I hope that it doesn't come back and say we need to close any more pools. I hope it comes back and says, I'm being very serious, we don't need to close any more pools. I hope it comes back and says we need to build an indoor facility, and then we need to do some splash parks, and hopefully we can do something for the seniors in terms of an indoor facility as well. I'm going to make a motion to, well, let me ask the commissioner first, and then if this makes sense to make a motion that's sort of off what's on this list. Early, you talked about paving for basketball courts and for tennis courts, and that that's something that you could bid out together and get done. I know that probably the majority of the tennis courts across the city have cracks all through them. I've got them in three of my parks. And one of these issues in the past has always been, they're very, very expensive to completely redo. So if you had another $150,000 to put towards tennis court repair, and you could bid all that out with the other tennis courts and basketball courts, is that something that would make sense? I could do it, yes. And we need more money. Now, for basketball and tennis courts, the issue with tennis is that it's declining in popularity. Yes. And we have to make decisions about reducing the number of courts, but having what we, what, what are remaining a quality that people want to play. So that's part of the process. But yes, we could, we can use additional, we will be spending additional money on repair to basketball courts and tennis courts. Yes, we could bundle this with the other things that you've approved to do. Okay. I, I would say that. But it would be interesting if we did a study on tennis because I've got tennis courts right around the corner from my house that people use that have cracks that are three inches wide. And they still practice, you know, serving and things like that. They don't play much because they're going to break an ankle or tear up a knee. But I wonder if it's declining because of our infrastructure being in decline rather than the sport itself being in decline. That could be part, but the game is declining all over the country in popularity. and I hope it comes back. Council Member Scotchfield and I both play, and that's the first job I had was working for the Recreation Department as a tennis instructor. Another thing that's hurt our tennis program here is that we used to have access to the high school courts. And now that those are closed off, people's options are limited and we should be getting more traffic. But part of it is the condition. A big part of it is people don't play as much. Okay. Well, I'm going to go ahead and make that motion and then let Councilman Scudgel speak. So I move to add $150,000 towards what they've already allocated to repair basketball courts and tennis courts and make the caveat that that's not for new courts, it's to repair existing courts. So moved. Okay, the motion on the floor is, do we have a second? Second, June. Council Member Beard seconded, is to allocate $150,000 to repair basketball and tennis courts throughout the county. And that is not for new. Actually, it's for tennis courts, but it's going to go with the money he has for tennis courts and basketball courts. I'm sorry, I thought I heard you say basketball. So it's just to repair tennis courts. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. If you want to speak to the motion, Council Member Akers, are you on to speak to the motion? Okay. Council Member Massadi, are you on to speak to the motion? Okay. Council Member Scotchfield, to the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Vice. Well, I'm a little concerned that we don't target where specifically, because I am a tennis player. I use the public courts. One thing that hasn't, and I used to work for USTA as subsidiary, so tennis is declining in numbers. And part of it might be that the public courts aren't available to play on. I know that the Kentucky, the USTA tennis leagues in Lexington over the last 10 years have started using the public courts to play matches, which was not done beforehand. So they are on those courts. But the problem is for a lot of those matches, they require at least three quarts in order to be used, and typically five during the regular season. But the money that – we need the money, but I'm afraid to just throw an amount without specifically targeting where it goes. Commissioner, do you – what do you think about that? I understand. I'm happy to take the money and spend it where I want to, but I understand the desire of the council totally to want those areas identified. Can I speak to that? And we could do that. I can't do it at the moment. Okay. Did you have another question? Okay. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That's an excellent point, and I've got two we can target, And there's, I believe, four tennis courts at Tates Creek or in Gainesway Park, and there's three in River Hill Park. And so if you want to target, if we could target those, that would give us spaces that are able to be used for tournaments. Thank you. Does one know how much it costs? I guess it depends on what's wrong at the tennis court. Could one tennis court eat up the whole $150,000? No. If it's in that bad of shape, no. Okay. I don't think we'd want to invest that much in one court. Did you want to speak to the new rebuilt? 50. Per court. Per court, new rebuilt. Rehab. But striping and repair runs, what, 20? So could I... Striping repair, normal, would be in the $20,000 range? Around $20,000. For a normal repair. So this amount of money in the motion would fix a lot of tennis courts? Could we change that to up to and then let them use their discretion on the courts that would allow tournament play or whatever you want to do? Bill, Bill, are you having trouble getting in? I'm just trying to talk to this motion. Are these people on this motion? Some of them are. Okay. Council Member Myers, did that finish you? Yeah. Council Member Ellinger, did you want to speak to the motion? Well, yes, I guess I do. Two different issues. This one is $150,000 to tennis courts, correct? And I've gotten a text from somebody who I respect who has said, as you said, tennis is declining, but one thing that has been increasing is volleyball. And what's the chances of if a tennis court is no longer necessary that you turn it into a volleyball? Is that doing? Yes, we can do that. We can look at those possibilities, and we are going to have to reduce the number of tennis courts. And if volleyball is increasing, then that might be the way that we transition from the tennis to the volleyball. It's possible, yes, sir. Okay, Councilmember Farmer, to the motion. To this motion. Mm-hmm. We just redid the tennis courts. There were two tennis courts in Lansdowne Merrick, and we came back and redid them to where there was just one court. And I've forgotten that. Was it four to two? All right, so it's still two. How much did we lay out for all that? That was a big number, as I recall. It was a very big number because Lansdowne Merrick had some geotechnical problems that most courts do not. All right. Well, just to council members, in asking for numbers, I mean, one of the most frustrating things I have run upon is how much it costs to resurface a court. Because it literally, I chased my tail for about 15 months down here trying to get something done when it went from like $4,000 to $8,000 to $16,000 to $32,000. Because it was never, it was one of the worst moving target things I've ever been involved in. Because every time I got the money, the amount doubled. And so I'm appreciative of having the conversation. I think it's a little bit tough to kind of know how staff would allocate this. But, you know, I would just say to you, I know in the 5th District, there's ample usage for the courts at Acton. And it's a nice way to balance other uses in that park. And I might not be opposed to going up to 200, but I think we kind of need to know where we're talking about. I mean, I'd love for it to be very effective. And if they become volleyball courts, I mean, that's fine too, or pickleball courts. I mean, there's just always a premium on flat space, flat land to use, but there seems to be interest in people using, at least in this interest, the ones in Lansdowne Merrick and the ones in Acton Park right now. Certainly the Lansdowne Merricks are fine, but the ones in Acton are not. So I'm open to the opportunity of this leadership. Thank you. Okay, very good. Thank you. Now, Council Member Akers, you are on for a different issue or this motion? Yeah. Different one and Masati for a different one council member beard to the motion Yes, I had a question for Michelle I'm sure you have this right the tip of your tongue How much did we spend on Glendover courts? That I do not. I'm sorry. I apologize. I don't recall what we spent there There were four courts and we restored all four courts all four courts and it was it was well over six figures It was. My instinct is about 150 to 180. That sounds about right. And that also had some geotechnical problems that we had to address. Yeah. Just so everybody could enjoy that piece of information. Councilmember Ellinger, are you back on to speak to the motion? No. Councilmember Henson to the motion? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just still have this feeling that we're grabbing at straws here and that we're spending money just because we have it and without a real clear plan. And, I mean, I don't think I'm going to support the motion for the tennis courts because I think, you know, again, just like the aquatics, I think areas need to be assessed and we need to get a set figure. and, you know, I would even not be opposed to just setting the balance aside until we do get assessments and cost estimates from Parks and Rec. So thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Stenet to the motion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I, too, appreciate the opportunity to be able to repair some of our pressing needs out there, but I think what's lacking at this point in our conversation about fund balance is a capital improvement plan for all of parks. And I think I don't want to spend any more money on parks unless there's something that's shovel-ready until we get this capital improvement plan and give parks the ability to come back to us with a legitimate plan that they need money for X, Y, and Z. So I'll vote against this for sure, and I won't be in favor of anything else additional today. I think we should leave it in fund balance, as I said earlier. I think you want to say something, Mr. Reed? I understand your position, and I wasn't asked whether you should or shouldn't. funded, I was asked, could we spend the money? But that being said, we have done an internal look at utilization of tennis courts and where they're being used and where we might be doing something different or could do something different in the future. Perhaps we ought to incorporate into what we've done already what some of the potential uses are for the tennis courts that we don't deem are necessary to continue to repair and keep up and come back to the council again, like you suggest, with an overall plan. We've done very well here today, and I still want to be able to produce for you in a timely fashion. And I'm not just talking about tennis courts. I'm talking about parks overall. I know you're talking the overall, but this is something that we have, and we are going to provide some form of a, and I think we really have it and can just expand on it, an overall long-term capital improvement list of projects of what we need to do over a period of time. I think that has to come to have real legitimacy. I think we can provide one this budget cycle, but to have real legitimacy, I think we need to have an overall strategic comprehensive plan of where parks as a whole goes from here. And I think that's something that we need to have a discussion going forward about as well. Well, as you said earlier, I think parks has done very well today. I think at the very beginning, public safety, affordable housing, all did very well, too. I think today, I think our work's done, in my opinion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Clark and then Council Member Ellinger to the motion. Thank you. Yes, it is to the motion. And, George, I appreciate this, and I think there's value here. I also think that we are at a point, and I will disagree with Council Member Stenet, I think parks has a lot of things that they could do, and we've been talking about the needs for parks for so long. Now, here's a chance to give them additional funding to do some of these. I firmly believe that parks knows what their needs are. And, yes, we need a comprehensive plan for parks. And I think a long-term plan is very important, and I think that's in the works. But we don't need a long-term plan to know what our immediate needs are in parks. And they're magnified by the fact that we haven't been able to give parks enough for years, from what I can tell. I think we're at the point now where we're taking little bitty things. Well, it's not little bitty, but $150,000 is not little bitty. But at the same time, I think we're at the point that where we were going a long time ago is to give parks a figure out of the fund balance and say, here's an amount of money that we would like for you to spend with the idea to keep in mind our projects. And Council Member Kaye suggested this. Council Member Ellinger suggested this. Council Member Henson suggested this. And I think we are at that point. So for that reason, George, I probably would vote this down, and hopefully we can come to a conclusion about the amount of money we can give parks and say, all right, there are specific needs, and we can help that now by giving them a specific figure. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. just having a sidebar with Michelle over there about this issue and what the park needs are and there are a tremendous amount of them and you can come up here and reinforce what I'm talking about but we were talking about how we can improve basically the four major ones and what they were looking at was with Shiltoe it's aging and they wanted to put 300,000 in that one and veterans, there's really nothing there they wanted to put $125,000 in that one. In Woodland, it's decaying, and Council Member Lawson, number 21, had made some requests for Woodland Park, and that was $121,000. And ironically, that comes out to $550,000. We have $534,000 that we haven't spent. And I think what they would like to do with that money would be get through the summer of next year and then do have a fall construction and use that for the fiscal year 16 improvement. So I think I would rather, since they have a plan that they would like to do, I think instead of using the 150 here, I think I'd like to use that money or at least make that request for the administration for fiscal year 16 to do that because I think that's where they see that. And, Michelle, if you want to talk about that is that it's your needs, then that's what I think since you all know what you want to do and have determined that, then that's where I think I'd like to spend the money. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You're welcome. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion on the floor? Okay. All those in favor of the $150,000 allocation to repair tennis courts, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? and so that motion fails two to ten. Council members, we have two minutes left and if we could get a total from our council administrator. We are still at 534,122. Okay, very good. Thank you. So, Council Members, I thank you all for your hard work. There are a few options. We can be finished, and Council Member, excuse me, Commissioner O'Meara would probably love that. or any time the council or the new council can come back and deal with this remaining part of the fund balance. So we have a couple more people who want to speak. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Back to number 17. Yes, ma'am. If I contact the neighborhood president of St. Martin's Village to find out the amount that they may be able to contribute from their community center funds, I would still like to make the motion to approve number 17 up to $10,000 and hoping that it will be reduced by a couple thousand dollars. I would like to make that motion. Okay. Is there a second? That's number 17. the ceiling replacement on the Charles Quillings Community Center up to $10,000. And Council Member Henson seconded that. Any discussion on the motion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? And if you'll log in your votes, I only heard a few votes voice. That motion passes. And then next up was Council Member Mossad. Okay, I'll make this quick. We've got 500 and I think 10,000 just got taken off, so we've got 524-122. Commissioner Reed, what would it take your office or to have someone farm this out to provide us with a comprehensive study of all the, I guess, a park master plan? Because that obviously is what needs to be done. I don't know if you can come off and give me a number that's accurate, but it's certainly necessary. And if we can maybe help in this quest, I'd certainly like to be able to do so. I have not priced out a Parks Master Plan. I don't know what a Parks Master Plan will cost. And I think we have to have some internal discussions as to what that plan would incorporate and what we're going to ask for. The last one was $125,000. The last one was $125,000. And that was done when? That assessment was when? 2009. So with inflation, if it was $100.25, what, $150,000? That's not what we need. $175,000. I'm just trying to get this done because obviously I think it needs to be done. Everybody has the same concerns about parks. I think $200,000 would be a more realistic number because I think we'd need something a little more comprehensive than what we got the last time. A lot of the last one dealt with organizational issues. Okay. And I thought we're. Then I would move to make, we have an allocation of $200,000 to be set aside for parks to provide us with a comprehensive parks master plan initiative. So moved. Motion by Council Member Missotti, second by Council Member Henson to allocate $200,000 to a new parks master plan. Is that correct? All right. discussion of the motion and council member Ellinger, are you first of all, let me ask council member Farmer, are you on to the motion? Yes, go ahead. No, you go ahead. It's all right. I think I'm really, I like the idea of leaving the number where we are, which is at 534. And now this, don't take me off the list. I've done on for this. I think that we can leave the money and ask them to provide us with a true guidance number rather than a shoot from the hip number. If we're interested in parks, as much as we say we are, we need to not shoot from the hip, but take a moment and decide what our next best move is, and maybe this council or early in the new year, the next council, decide what that move is, but just to kind of grab and go here, I don't think is right for the opportunity that we had before us. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thanks, Vice Mayor. I agree. I think, as I said earlier, they have what they want to do. Michelle, you want to come to the microphone, please? I know you probably have been sitting there trying to avoid this, but when we had that little sidebar, could you go over the three parks that you said that you would like to have the capital improvements on, and you know what they are? I don't think we need to do a study at this point. Sure, and I'm not going to pretend to recommend when they should be funded, but Shillatel Playground is still a need, a very real need. However, we don't have the capacity right now to take that on with Jacobson in progress. So my recommendation is that Shiltoe is valid, is a valid and important project, but it needs to be deferred until we're done with Jacobson. And then the other two playgrounds that are of concern that in 15 years I've been here, we've not replaced or improved in any way are woodland and veterans. Veterans is a lack of playground. There's really nothing there. And woodland is wood also, and it continues to decay. We've had to remove one piece. We may have to take out a few more pieces to make this summer season safe. So those are important projects that just need considered in some future funding cycle. So I'm not sure if we need to do a study, but I don't think at this point you can probably spend the money either at this point. So keeping the money there and to be able to use it in the future I think is probably the benefit to the community, it appears to me. Because you can't do it in the next six months, can you? I cannot. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, we're pushing into your time. Shall we finish the list? Okay. Council Member Myers. I agree with Council Member Ellinger. I think if we do anything, let's give them the money to do the things they want to do that are on this list rather than spending the money on a plan and then let parks come together and come back to the council after the first of the year and talk about what they want to do for a comprehensive plan. So I'm not going to support the motion. Thank you. Okay. Very good. we have the motion on the floor to spend $200 million on a new Parks Master Plan. $200,000. Oops. This is probably my last fund balance meeting to chair, so I'm finally there. $200,000. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed, nay. And if you'll vote electronically, that motion fails 2 to 14. Council members, I thank you so much. It's a work of love, isn't it? Council member Farmer. Mine was simply a motion to adjourn. All right. Very good. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.