# General Government & Social Services Committee - May 5, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 5, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3649 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3649?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-05-05 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 10,019 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government & Social Services Committee met on May 5, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., with Lamb presiding. The committee considered five agenda items, taking seven votes and hearing five public comments during the session. Three items were approved: EMS Service Fees, Inclusion of Veterans as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and the Bluegrass International Center. Two items were deferred: Review of Ethics Ordinance and Items in Committee. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 5, 2015: * Akers * Bledsoe * F. Brown * J. Brown * Gibbs * Henson * Lamb * Moloney * Scutchfield * Evans * Vice Mayor Kay * Steve Kay No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included seven votes, all of which passed by voice vote. **Resolution 0000-2015 — Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program** [timestamp: 00:42:42] Motion by Henson, seconded by Maloney. The resolution to authorize the Department of Social Services to create and administer an Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program passed. **Resolution 0000-2015 — Veteran-Owned Small Business Goal** [timestamp: 00:55:21] Motion by Akers, seconded by Henson. The resolution to adopt a three percent (3%) minimum goal for certified veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses passed. **Ordinance 0000-2015 — Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission** [timestamp: 01:08:49] Motion by Maloney, seconded by Henson. The ordinance to create the Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission and endorse renaming the Bluegrass International Community Center to the Lexington Global Engagement Center passed. **Remove EMS Service Fees from Committee** [timestamp: 01:12:01] Motion by Henson, seconded by Maloney. The motion to remove the EMS Service Fees item from Committee passed. **Remove Inclusion of Veterans as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises from Committee** [timestamp: 01:12:33] Motion by Akers, seconded by Henson. The motion to remove the Inclusion of Veterans as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises item from Committee passed. **Remove Master Plan Update from Committee** [timestamp: 01:13:05] Motion by Akers, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion to remove the Master Plan update for Masters and Station Park from Committee passed. **Adjourn the Meeting** [timestamp: 01:13:35] Motion by F. Brown, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion to adjourn the meeting passed. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included one financial action regarding emergency assistance programs. **Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program** The body approved an appropriation of $50,000 for an addendum to the Emergency Financial Assistance Program. This funding was directed to the Department of Social Services under Resolution 0000-2015. The appropriation establishes the Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program as an addition to the existing Emergency Financial Assistance Program framework. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the council during the public comment period. **Akers** [timestamp: 00:33:14] asked about program eligibility and income verification, specifically inquiring how many people would be affected by the program and what process would be used to verify income and need. Staff responded that verification would be handled by Adult and Tenant Services staff. **Bledsoe** [timestamp: 00:38:28] raised questions about cost comparison with other providers. Bledsoe asked about pricing from American Medical Response and Rural Metro for comparison purposes. In response, the council was informed that American Medical Response charges $449 for basic life support when service is scheduled more than four hours in advance. **Evans** [timestamp: 00:40:52] asked about budget structure and program tracking, specifically whether the new program would be established as a separate fund or incorporated into the existing EFA total. The response confirmed that the program would be part of the EFA total. **Lamb** [timestamp: 01:05:14] offered suggestions regarding branding and marketing of the Bluegrass International Center. Lamb proposed that the center's name should be more distinctive and memorable, offering examples such as "Global Lex." Lamb recommended that the council consider holding a community-wide contest to develop branding for the center. **Maloney** [timestamp: 01:08:12] expressed appreciation for work completed on the Bluegrass International Center, specifically complimenting Taylor on her efforts. Maloney shared a personal connection to the project, noting that it represents the realization of a previously held vision for international engagement in the community. ## Appointments Bledsoe was appointed to the Ethics Ordinance Review Subcommittee. ## Contested Items **Veteran-owned Business Inclusion** A disagreement arose regarding the scope of veteran-owned business inclusion in the resolution under consideration. [timestamp: unavailable] Council Member Evans questioned whether the resolution should encompass all veteran-owned businesses or be limited to service-disabled veteran-owned businesses only. Evans noted that the state bill being considered focused exclusively on disabled veterans, raising the question of whether the local resolution should maintain alignment with that narrower scope. The nature of this disagreement resulted in a split vote among council members, indicating that the body was divided on how broadly to define the veteran-owned business category for purposes of the resolution. ## EMS Service Fees [timestamp: 00:05:33] Council Member Henson presented a proposal to establish an Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program designed to help income-eligible residents manage the costs of emergency medical services. The program would cap assistance at $400 per transport and would not provide retroactive coverage for previously incurred charges. **Program Details** The proposed program would be administered through the city's Adult and Tenant Services department. Funding would be provided through an addendum to the existing Emergency Financial Assistance Program, allowing the city to leverage established administrative infrastructure and processes. **Key Speakers** The agenda item involved discussion among Council Members Henson, Ford, Godfrey, and Wood. **Outcome** The proposal was approved by the council. ## Inclusion of Veterans as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises [timestamp: 00:43:44] Council Member Akers presented a resolution to establish a separate 3% minimum goal for veteran-owned and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses within the Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) program. **Key Details of the Proposal** The resolution proposes creating a dedicated contracting goal specifically for veterans and service-disabled veterans, carving out a 3% minimum target within the existing DBE program framework. According to the presentation, the proposal carries no budgetary impact. **Implementation and Evaluation** The proposal includes a plan to evaluate the program's effectiveness after six months of implementation, allowing the council to assess whether the initiative is meeting its intended goals and to make adjustments if necessary. **Speakers** Council Member Akers led the presentation on this agenda item, with Slayton also participating in the discussion. **Outcome** The resolution was approved by the council. ## Review of Ethics Ordinance Council Member Evans provided an update on the work of the Ethics Ordinance Review Subcommittee [timestamp: 00:56:26]. The subcommittee has reached consensus on a significant change to the structure of the ethics commission. **Key Decision** The subcommittee agreed to eliminate organizational nominations for the ethics commission and replace them with categorical appointments. This represents a shift in how commission members will be selected going forward. **Next Steps** The subcommittee will continue its work with the goal of completing a full report by year-end. **Outcome** This agenda item was deferred, meaning further discussion or action on the Ethics Ordinance Review will occur at a future meeting. ## Bluegrass International Center Multicultural Affairs Coordinator Isabel Taylor presented on the Bluegrass International Center's expansion and proposed organizational changes [timestamp: 00:58:15]. **Presentation Highlights** Taylor reported significant growth at the center, with the number of international languages supported increasing to 125. The center achieved a growth rate of 239%. **Proposed Changes** Taylor proposed two major initiatives: - Renaming the Bluegrass International Center to the Lexington Global Engagement Center - Creating a Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission **Outcome** The proposal was approved. ## Items in Committee The committee discussed and voted on the status of several referred items during this agenda segment. [timestamp: 01:09:52] **Items Addressed** The committee considered removal of the following items from committee: - EMS Service Fees - Veterans as DBEs (Disadvantaged Business Enterprises) - Master Plan update for Masters and Station Park - Bluegrass International Center **Committee Action** The committee voted to remove several of the referred items from committee consideration. However, the Bluegrass International Center was retained for a future update rather than being removed at this time. **Key Participants** The discussion involved committee members Henson, Akers, Scutchfield, and Maloney. **Outcome** The overall outcome of this agenda item was deferred, indicating that while some items were addressed, final disposition or further action on certain matters was postponed for later consideration. --- ## Decisions - **Resolution 0000-2015** — passed: Authorize the Department of Social Services to create and administer an Emergency Medical Transportation Assistance Program - **Resolution 0000-2015** — passed: Adopt a three percent (3%) minimum goal for certified veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses - **Ordinance 0000-2015** — passed: Create the Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission and endorse renaming the Bluegrass International Community Center to the Lexington Global Engagement Center - **Motion** — passed: Remove the EMS Service Fees item from Committee - **Motion** — passed: Remove the Inclusion of Veterans as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises item from Committee - **Motion** — passed: Remove the Master Plan update for Masters and Station Park from Committee - **Motion** — passed: Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript The ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ I'm sorry. Thank you. All right, I think that we have a quorum here, so if we can get started. I will call the General Government and Social Services Committee May 5, 2015, to order. and the first item on the agenda is the approval of the committee summary is there a motion council member council member maloney made a motion to approve the summary and council member henson seconded the motion is there any discussion to the motion i'm sorry i didn't sign in i just had a question yes council member evans um it It looks from the minutes that Council Member Stennett did have was present, but I didn't see him listed at the beginning. So I didn't know if that was. He was present for one of the items that I didn't know if that was. Okay, but he wasn't marked as being here for the whole meeting. I think he's actually not on the committee. So I think, I don't know, unless they request to be considered a member for the committee that day, perhaps they're not included in the. Okay. And I guess the vice mayor was listed because I guess he had to preside for the election. Is that what happened? No, he had an item on the agenda. Oh, okay. All right. I was just curious about that. Just wanted to give council members Senate credit if he was here. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Is there any other discussion? There being no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That motion passes. Our next agenda item is the EMS services, and I'll recognize Council Member Henson. Would you like to introduce this item for the committee? Thank you, Chair. Just to give you a little history on this item, We had, this is emergency transport services, and originally this was in the Public Safety Committee. But then after a great amount of discussion, it was changed and placed into the General Gov Social Services Committee, which I feel is a better fit for it. And originally what I was striving for was to provide assistance to elderly citizens living in Fayette County and provide assistance for them or waived assistance for emergency medical transport fees. But under Medicaid and Medicare laws, that's not allowed. So I think I've worked with a great number of people. We have decided to look at it more in the sense that we provide assistance to low-income individuals, just like we do for LexServe billings and things like that. But I had a great team that worked on this with me, which is Commissioner Ford and Commissioner Mills worked on this as well. Melissa Murphy from Law and Brian Wood from the Fire Department and Rusty, I can't think of Rusty's last name from Revenue. But anyway, I do appreciate everyone's efforts and I guess I will invite Commissioner Ford to the podium and he'll go through the presentation which will give you a better understanding of what we hope to do. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Henson, Council Member Lamb, and committee members. Thank you for taking time for us to present this topic as described to by Council Member Henson. This is a collaborative approach, and I will be leading the presentation, but I do have the aforementioned stakeholders that Council Member Henson just alluded to, Rusty Cook of Revenue is there with us. Also, Connie Godfrey, our Director of Adult and Tenant Services, is here as well. and if there are any questions for the committee during the presentation, feel free to just chime in. We can stop and answer those questions or we as a team can answer those at the end of the presentation. As described by Council Member Henson, our focus is to identify the need and the need is to mitigate the threat of low-income residents declining or refusing EMS transport service due to financial limitations or inability to pay. We know at times that perception can be reality, so we wanted to address that. Our proposal that we bring to you today is to offer financial assistance for costs associated with emergency medical transport of low-income residents. Council Member Henson also alluded to the fact that this topic began some time ago, so we wanted, as best we possibly could, to reset the table, if you will. we want to focus on five areas that will allow for council consideration at the end of our presentation. The first is to reintroduce the EMS delivery system in Lexington, to distinguish the EMS functions of dispatch and transport, to identify local market providers also present in the medical transport field, to assess the financial impact of medical billing and EMS fees, and to propose establishing the Emergency Medical Transport Assistance Program addendum for Adult and Tenant Services. And as you can see by the agenda, there's a lot to be shared here today. And of course, we could not have provided the content without the help of those already aforementioned. A basic introduction of EMS, our Division of Fire and Emergency Services, This is a combination department that provides fire suppression, special operations, hazardous material mitigation, and, of course, EMS, emergency medical services. Each of our firefighters is an emergency medical technician, an EMT. Of the 542 current firefighters who are EMTs, of those 230 are also certified as paramedics. Our EMS handles all emergency runs in Fayette County in response to 911. So if a citizen were to call into 911, it would be our system of EMS that would respond. All dispatch medical emergencies are responded to by a system that is staffed 24 hours a day. That includes 11 frontline units and additional support if needed. EMS dispatch and transport. In calendar year 2014, EMS responded to just over 36,000 dispatch runs with close to 32,000 patients transported. And simply a dispatch or a run is identified from a call from our EMS leaves the station and they arrive to the scene of the incident or to the location of the incident. Transport is if once at the scene, they in turn transport the patient to the medical facility, primarily the hospital. In calendar year 2015, we're seeing an increase in both dispatch runs and patient transports. Legally, if a patient requests transport, once our EMS team is on the scene, it must be provided to them. Patients also, however, have the right to decline transport. after they have been informed of their right to transport and are found to be alert and oriented. Implied consent basically means that our EMS personnel must act in the best interest of the patient. In the event that patients are unconscious or incoherent, we make a judgment call in regards to taking that patient to the hospital. And when we do that, that brings forth or applies our implied consent. In addition to Lexington EMS, there are two other providers that are recognized for medical transport services. They are American Medical Response, AMR, or Rural Metro. Both Rural Metro and AMR main responsibility are for convalescent runs. These are runs primarily non-emergent in nature. Runs to and from dialysis treatment to a nursing home, from a doctor's visit to and from a home. Rural Metro and AMR provides those services. In addition, our EMS will also do emergent transfers of patients from one facility needing to go to another facility in a critical needs basis. As such, and this slide actually begins to transition across the different operational units of government. And again, Council Member Henson mentioned that this subject not only impacts public safety, finance, and social services, and this is an example that basically illustrates that because of our EMS service, the City of Lexington, we are in the medical billing business. However, ambulance crews in Lexington do not determine the patient's billing level for medical transport costs. The primary concern of our EMS crews once they go to the scene is to deliver care to the patient. The billing level is determined by a third-party billing company, which reviews and analyzes the information in the patient care report transmitted on the scene by EMS personnel. There are four different rates or different levels that you see listed on your screen, beginning with basic life support, ALS1, ALS2, and again, the previous slide mentioned the inner facility transfer. that tops out at just over $1,100. There's also a mileage charge of $12.50 per mile. This slide is an average from fiscal year ending 2012, 2013, and 2014, and it also has some data that takes us through about three quarters of the current year, fiscal year 2015. And what it shows is that the average billing per transport is in the neighborhood of $800 to $850. There's roughly 25,000 transports if you look at fiscal years 12 through 14. The revenue received by our government is on average of upwards to $7 million, and then you also see a similar figure of receivable there. I will tell you just from our discovery, Council Member Henson, and working with our team, It is a pretty intense aspect of our revenue collection here for the city, which is medical billing. This brings us to our proposal, which is to design and implement a financial assistance program consistent with comparable social service programs. And the qualifying resident here in Fayette County would be those whose household incomes fall at or below 150% of federal poverty guidelines. These are a population of folks that primarily are already eligible to receive services through our Division of Adult and Tenant Services. This side, on a household sliding scale, a household of one person would be income $17,655 or below. You see the household size for a four, which is just at $36,375, and so on. So these figures identify the population which would be eligible per this new program that we're proposing. Again, we're fortunate to propose an addendum which would not require us to recreate the wheel in whole. Persons would be deemed to demonstrate inability to pay costs associated with the emergency transport fees. Again, they're going to be folks within the federal poverty guidelines. sets the cap for assistance at $400 per transport occurrence. Retroactive services and outstanding fees are not eligible. As Medicare and Medicaid patients are an affected population for this program, we did seek the assistance of our Department of Law. Attorneys, Moore and Santa, are both here to describe the information, if needed, based on the legal guidance that we received from the Office of Inspector General from the Department of Health and Human Services, a federal agency. A little bit more on the program administration has proposed. Clients can access financial assistance only once within a 24-month period. When they engage and encounter our staff at the Adult and Tenant Services, they will be assigned a caseworker to help manage and provide an assessment of underlying issues causing the need in their financial circumstances. Again, once they visit us out on Industry Road, they may also realize that they are eligible for additional social service needs based on that comprehensive financial assessment. And in the event that there are uninsured clients who will pursue this program, we do work with partners such as the Community Action Council to help folks become aware of and perhaps even enroll in the new state health insurance exchange, which is Connect. So this slide summarizes some of the assistance that our government for quite some time now has provided assistance to folks of modest means throughout our community. The EFA, the Emergency Financial Assistance Program, that is actually the fund that we are proposing to create the addendum for. You'll see the level of funding that has been allocated, that has been appropriated for the current year, 15, and the balance as of mid-April. So newer programs of the sewer user fee and the landfill fee are fees associated with our new LexServe billing. Rezoning and redevelopment is a fund that dates back sometime, maybe a decade or two now, that provides assistance in the event that a zone change would require massive relocation in certain areas of our town. And then also we have a newer fund, which is the temporary housing relocation fund. Again, we don't want to recreate the will. We just proposed these addendums to the EFA fund. In closing, our recommendations and requests that the council would be to the committee would be to establish the Emergency Medical Transport Assistant EMTA program via adoption of the council resolution, which is incorporated into your committee packet, to authorize the Division of Adult Tenant Services to create the addendum to the existing emergency financial assistance program guidelines. And our effort would be to get that new tool in the toolkit online around about the turn of the new fiscal year, which is July 1. From that, we would then analyze program activity and project financial impact in anticipation of work for the fiscal year 2017 budget. We're not asking for additional funds at this time because, quite honestly, we don't have a basis to provide the council. We do have funds that the council has been gracious enough through EFA year over year to provide. In times of about mid-year, we would be in a better position to be able to report to the council the utility once this program is online and how that may or may not impact future budgeting for emergency financial assistance. Councilmember Lamb, thank you for your time, and thanks to those who are here to join us. We'll be welcome to answer any questions or entertain comments. Thank you, Commissioner Ford, for your presentation, and I will open up the floor for the council for comments, and I'll recognize Councilmember Maloney. I want to first of all thank Councilman Henson for bringing this together. I know you went through a lot of loops in order to get to where you are, and I want to commend Commissioner Beth Mills at the time for coming up with this great idea. And Commissioner Ford, I appreciate you following through with it. Now, the question I have is on slide 17, I guess, where the housing relocation budget for $25,000 went to zero. Is there a waiting list, or what's going on with that account, the $25,000? and I see we all don't have any balance now in that. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. At this time, Council Member Blaine, I'm going to ask the appropriate expertise to come forward. Connie Godfrey from Adult Tenant Service. Sure. Good afternoon. Hello. The reason that is the condemnation, and that is at $25,000. We was budgeted that, and it's at zero now. But we're using other funds for that. But that is when our code enforcement condemns apartments, and we're down to zero. But we're able to substantiate that from other funds, from the zoning relocation fund. And the reason why, I mean, and I think it's a great program, and I'm just wondering, how long ago did you all hit zero? About three weeks ago. So it's not like it's something that happened. Because that is hard to judge sometimes because we can't predict how many condemnations we will have. But usually we're at $1,200 at this point last year, but now we're at zero. It was more condemnations. Okay. But we're able to substantiate that with other funds. Thanks. You're welcome. Thank you. Is that all? Excuse me. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I thought this was a very interesting and very creative way to approach the problem first. But I had a lot of specific questions, and I apologize that we didn't ask these earlier. So if you'll go to slide six, you know, the American Medical Response and the rural metro, do you know what their cost is as a comparison? I'm just curious theirs versus ours, if you looked into that at all. Chief Wood. No, I'm not aware of what their costs are. I know they're kind of different from what we do where they do convalescent runs. They require letters from doctors stating the necessity. It's non-immersion, and they do a lot of insurance billing. Okay. But the residual is. Okay. So I actually had a constituent call me on Saturday with this very issue, and he was saying his mother called the ambulance, was taken to the hospital, got a $1,600 bill. she would not meet these requirements because she would not be under 150%. And, you know, his point was, can't she just get some other point of transportation? And I was kind of like, well, like a taxi or, you know, how does that work? And so I was curious. So American Medical Response, these have to be done through the doctor privately. We can't tell people about that or. No, everything, like if you're going from a nursing home to a doctor's appointment or you're going from the hospital back to your home or back to the nursing home, They have certain forms they have to fill out and be signed by a doctor. Now, they are allowed to call American Medical Responsive Rural Metro to come transport them anytime. They hold the same type of license that we do, but we have access to 911. And that's kind of a gentleman's agreement between them is we don't want to do the convalescent runs because we're more trained and geared towards emergency response, where they're more geared towards the convalescent side. Okay. But I do not, I'm sorry, I do not know what their price is. Yeah, I was just curious. I mean, my initial thought was, you know, why didn't this gentleman know about that service? Because he probably shouldn't have called 911. You know, there might have been another way of getting that person to the hospital than this, than the EMS. Now, there's no charge, ma'am. I don't know if this is known well, but if we come out, and as Commissioner Ford alluded to, if we just are dispatched and we come out and we assess you, there's no charge. There's only a charge if we transport you. Right, if we transport you. So speaking of the charges on page 11, or slide, I'm sorry, slide 7, the basic life support, advanced life support, those numbers, are those public insurance dollars or are those, or private, or are those Medicare, Medicaid prices? Are they just estimates? My understanding of these figures are based in large part by the standards of Medicaid and Medicare. From my understanding, and I'm willing to be corrected if so, So these figures are, again, transmitted based on once our EMS personnel are on the scene and they enter in what they observe and they assess the needs of the client. It's all got to do a lot with billing and coding, and it goes to our third-party billing company. Once we get on the scene, we just send a report. It's electronically sent to the billing company. When their codes match up with our treatments is how it's determined whether it's BLS. If we just go, we do an assessment, we take a blood pressure, and we take it to the hospital, it's a BLS. If we start an IV, it's an ALS. If we go into something further, like defibrillization or intubation, it becomes ALS, too. And then, like I said, the inner facility hospital is the 11th. Okay. So the $400 in some of these cases would be almost a half and then or a third, essentially. Okay. And, Council Member Bolletsoe, just quickly in response, you raise a good point that really had an impact on our discussion. Considering AMR and rural metro, our initial thought was to approach this from a perspective of medical transport. We quickly decided, not quickly, but we then decided to really focus on emergency medical transport, which would really, nine times out of ten, if not higher, impact our services. Basically, we want to be able to get folks from the scene, from their home, to the emergency room. I'd like to add something to what Chief Wood said on the billing, that the amount is an amount that's billed, but then it goes to a disallowed part for, like, Medicare, Medicaid, or our commercial insurance, or so that we may bill, say, $1,000, where Medicare will automatically knock a part of it down to a certain amount, and then they'll pay a portion of that. Then it gets to the point of what the amount the actual patient will have to pay. So based on that, I think my time is almost set. Would that mean it would be free? Would it get down to zero, or is it still half? No, it would get down to a small amount. For example, I did a presentation about it a while ago, and an average charge was $824. Well, the disallowed amount of Medicare was $429. So then the total amount that was due was $395. Medicare came along and paid the portion of it, which was $305. So then it got down to a patient responsibility of $90. If they have supplemental insurance, that'll pay a piece of it. Then it gets down to an even lower amount. If they don't, that on average is $90 is what the people on Medicare would have to pay. Okay. Okay, my time is up. Thank you. Councilmember Blasso, did you have additional questions? Okay, okay. Councilmember Henson? Thank you, Chair. I, Council Member Akers, if she has a question, I'm going to, I have a motion once all the questions are done. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. To follow up on, I'll follow Council Member Bledsoe's questions. So, Rusty, or this might be for Commissioner Ford. Do we have an idea of how many people this actually affects that have either requested assistance in the past year or two? Or, I mean, I had this bill myself a couple years ago due to insurance deductibles and that sort of thing. I had to pay out of pocket myself. So I understand the burden that it causes. But is it also then folks with regular insurance, would they also qualify for assistance if they met the income guidelines, I assume? Our program is really going to focus primarily on the donor-tenant services will be based on income, based on 150% of federal poverty income. I know Council Member Henson, and again, if you go back to page two on our slide, is the need. And so the once in a 24-month period, if the balance was only $90 in Rusty's example of after Medicare pays their portion after the disallowable, then would that mean they would get that $90 assistance only once in 24 months? Yes. Okay. And do we have a number, an estimate of how many people this would help? I will say, in regards to an estimate, initially, the proposal was $50,000 to increase, to create a fund of $50,000 for emergency medical transport. And that $50,000 figure also rolled over when we decided to propose an addendum. $50,000, and these are just rough analysis, nothing scientific to them at all, $50,000 divided by the $400 maximum cap would allow us to be able to serve 125 cases. That's two transports. At a maximum of 400. At a maximum of 400. Adversely, if we estimated that there would be one requested transport to be funded by this fund per week at that cap of $400, that's $20,000. So these are some of the data points that we hope to be able to analyze and bring back to the council if the council does see fit to allow this tool in the toolkit and we can monitor the utility. One thing of importance that brings in the law department's aspect of it is that we have to, this is a program that we can't advertise proactively. The legal information that you have from the inspector general basically speaks to that. So we will have to be able to, hopefully this gets out word of mouth. Again, that's combating the threat of low-income residents by perception or otherwise feeling that they can't afford, there's no opportunity for them to be able to address the cost of medical transport. once the bill goes out there may be an avenue for us to incorporate this information in the bill but we can't place it on the billboard in hopes to funnel folks to adult and tenant services for this program however once folks have engaged the system we hope that they will become aware of that so once they receive a bill what the balance do from our whatever that office is adult and services. Well, the bill would come from... Oh, the billing company. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yes. So the... SDI is the third party billing company. Would there be a way then to put on that SDI bill, you know, if you're having trouble or need to set up payments, call our adult and tenant services? Or would that be a third party we have to negotiate with that vendor? I believe only at that point, if not sometime later, but that point would be the earliest, Council Member Akers, that we could then... Or if they called that vendor, the bill and said, there's no way I can make this $400 payment, will then the vendor refer them back to us for assistance? I don't know if the vendor would refer. I can't speak at this point. Ideally, that's what we would like to see happen. We would want folks that, once they receive that bill, that just as any other financial assistance program, whether it's LexServe, whether it's, this is another QA4 example the penalties we access on sidewalk repair, tree removal, folks realize that this is an avenue for assistance, if they so choose. Okay, and quickly, who and how does it work, the process for verifying income and demonstrating need? Can you tell me a little bit about that? That's adult tenant services, and that is an aspect which makes this an ideal fit, if we so choose to put this. this is what our staffers and caseworkers in adult and tending services under Connie Godfrey's leadership, they do day in and day out. They assess eligibility, and there are steps. And so that's a very important question for the council to ask and recognize, is that there is going to be the same level of stewardship and programmatic guidance that we can assure in our other assistance programs would also be offered to this program as well. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Excuse me, Council Member Bledsoe, do you want to refer, defer to Council Member Evans first and then come back to you? All righty. Council Member Evans, please. Thank you, Chair. I had two questions. One, how soon would the staff be looking at implementing this program to the extent that they can advertise or whatever? So what's the time frame we're looking at as it relates to the budget? And then the second question was to clarify in page 20, the memo that we received. And the last line, it looks like they're talking about up to 12, twice in a 12-month period. Has that, that was changed? Was that the original thought, and did that then change? That did change, yes, Council Member Evans. Thanks for that clarification. That did change once within a 24-month period, and the response to your first question is July 1. We're hoping to have this online, if adopted by Council. So July 1, which would incorporate into the new fiscal year, which I think in the proposed budget is $200,000, as is traditional for EFA. And actually, I do have a quick question, but it is actually, so I'd like to ask Council Member Evans if she'd take the chair real quick. And I just have one quick question. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Commissioner Ford, on your request, there was an addendum to the Emergency Financial Assistance Program, and this might be a question for law. Is that something that needs to be approved by council, or is it policy? I think the way we were originally stating it previously, because I think we were going to come and ask for $50,000 is what the original discussion, but the addendum is just to give your blessing for adult and tenant services to run an additional program like they similarly situated programs that they already do. But there was a resolution that kind of tells us that, okay, that we're going to put this program into place. So that's what we're needing the council approval for. So it would be in addition to the resolution that creates and administers, or is it all wrapped into one? All wrapped into one. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. I'll be very brief, I promise. Call me a new Council Member with lots of questions. So the numbers that we have allocated in funding for the EFA and the sewer use of the others, how are those determined? Are those based on prior usage or...? I think, yes, Council Member Bledsoe, I think that's safe to say. Traditionally, I think $200,000 has been the allocation for emergency financial assistance. And it goes pretty, in full disclosure, it goes pretty quickly. There is a need, and that demonstrates that our level of funding support, of course, does not capture all of the community need that's out there. But that $200,000 is a historical figure. That is based by utility. That is also. Okay. What about for the sewer user fee and landfill user fees, also based on history or need? These are more recent funds because, of course, with our landfill, our LexServe billing now coming online. but I think we're seeing just about the same. In general, funds that are appropriated for our financial assistance programs year in and year out, they're expended. Oh, I believe they would be. I was just curious how the numbers were determined, the budget numbers were determined, I guess. Okay, I'll ask one more question or two more. So the ones within a 24-month period, I'm glad to hear and see that you're going to work to do the underlying issue. I know that when I did ride-alongs with police and fire, they said, and we have a lot of frequent flyers, and they seem to run up the bills and charge the most. So I'm glad to see that's part of it, that it's not just going to help, but also try to figure out what we can do to stop the practice in the future. So I was very glad to hear that. And then, too, for those who are interested in listening in, the American Medical Response does have some rates, just in case you're curious, for basic life support. It was $449 per transport if you schedule more than four hours in advance, and it's $489 if you're four hours or less, need more emergency service. So it's obviously cheaper than ours, so I just thought I would pass that along to anybody who's listening. Thank you. I just want to add something to give you some more history on the budget. When I first became Director of Adult Intended Services, my budget was $120,000. We went through that very fast. The council was so gracious in raising that amount to $200,000 because with the rent and utilities and with the economic atmosphere here in Lexington, the need was humongous. And so the council agreed to increase that amount. LexServe, when we separated from the water company, the bills were so high because many people did not pay that LexServe bill. It was $2,000, $3,000, and the most vulnerable of our citizens were affected. And the council, again, was so gracious to start that new program on LexServe. So that's a little history of the EFA program, and it's still building. Thank you. Council Member Evans? I think Council Member Bledsoe and I have caught the bugs. But I have, again, another question just as trying to put the budget link, I guess, in perspective with this. So would this be, like, another fund like we have for the sewer and, like, serve and all that? Would that be a separate account? Like it shows up in the budget through our links? Would it be separated like that? or would it just be part of the EFA total? It would just be part of the EFA total. Okay. So if you're looking at page 13, it would be part of the EFA total. Okay. And that's why I'm referring to it just as a tool in the EFA toolkit for financial assistance. Okay. And so there would be, I guess my concern is I don't want Connie running out of money. so just making sure that that would cover I guess the anticipation of usage or is that just the money that you have to deal with and you'll figure it out as it goes as it's being used This is an example of our attempt which is offered genuinely as we administer these programs to attempt to do more with less We will, however, definitely let the council and apprise the administration and the council through our analysis if we see an uptick, if we see great liftoff of utility with this fund. Because what that would do if the $200,000 remains year over year with this new tool and this new financial assistance program, it's going to decrease the availability of rent assistance, of utility assistance. So we're going to, as you guys have entrusted us, to monitor and manage, and when we see the need, if it arises, to share that with the council from a budgetary standpoint going forward. And I was actually going to suggest that we have a six-month sometime in the late fall that we can actually ask them to come back and give us a report on this. So that's something that I was going to suggest when we get to the referral items at the end of the meeting. So, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to bring forth a motion that I move to authorize the Department of Social Services to create and administer an emergency medical transportation assistance program to assist individuals who are income eligible with paying the cost of emergency medical transportation services. So moved. Second. Okay, that motion was made by Council Member Henson, seconded by Council Member Maloney. Okay. Right. Is there any discussion to the motion? It was a tie. It was a tie. Okay. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being no discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes, and thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that presentation. Thank you, Councilman. All right. Next on the agenda is a presentation today on the inclusion of veterans as disadvantaged business enterprises. Council Member Akers, would you like to introduce this item, please? Thank you. Following, let's see, the last time I brought this forward was March 10th meeting, and at that time I was proposing that we include veterans in our existing disadvantaged business enterprise program. After discussion during the committee meeting, I went back and had a subsequent meeting with Todd Slayton and Marilyn Clark from purchasing and the DBE program, Minority Business Program, and discussed some changes and some concerns that they shared. And so I have a new version to present today, but I guess I'll introduce Todd and let him update everybody first. Good afternoon. Craig and Council Member Akers did all the hard work here. But in a nutshell, what we've come up with is to adopt a separate goal of 3% for veteran-owned businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses. And we're not asking to fund this program at this time. What we felt would be the best thing to do would be to incorporate it into our DBE program. A lot of the events that we put on, a lot of the outreach that we've done, we can easily incorporate this piece as a separate goal into those activities. And we'd like to try that and see how close we can get to our training goal and what other types of programs we would need to initiate after we give it a trial run. So that's really it. Yes. So basically, the only change, instead of revising the existing ordinance that established the Minority Business Enterprise Program and the threshold for that program, this actually sets a completely separate threshold and a separate goal for veteran-owned businesses separate from that. So I know that that was some concern prior. Maryland is on board with this, and again, it has no budgetary impact. We will look at it in six months or in the next year and see if there has been a budgetary impact, and then maybe add a little bit of monies for printing costs or changes. But that's all that we expect at this time. All right. Thank you, Council Member Akers and Mr. Slayton. Council Member Maloney. I want to thank Council Member Akers for bringing this up. I appreciate what you're doing with the veterans. My question to you, Todd, is what other cities that do this, what their average percentage, is it 3% or is it higher? It really varies. Some people have higher percentages. Some people have, obviously, some people have no preference or no goal. What we found was that some of the cities have a more specific goal because they've done a disparity study and they've determined how many veteran-owned businesses there are in the area and what types of services they could provide. Usually they've done that in conjunction with an overall disadvantaged business disparity study. We have never taken that step. We established our 10% goal for minority and women-owned businesses years ago, and we've kind of found that it seems to be the sweet spot for us. I think with the 3% goal for veteran-owned businesses, we'll see how it rolls out, and then we'll make adjustments if we need to. And I want to – the reason why I bring that up is because we've got the VA hospital here. We've got a lot of activity of veterans here, and I think that's great what Councilmember Acres is doing here, 3%. And, I mean, it's something I would like to review in a few years because I think these numbers are going to get a bit larger as long as we have the VA here and a lot of programs that we're doing. And the workforce, we end up getting that, and I assume we'll get more points by putting the word veterans involved with that. So hopefully, I think this is a great idea. well it's there were surprisingly not very many veteran-owned businesses in fayette county that are that are certified but i think after establishing this program that may help that to change and i know the state is also looking at some of their own language to incorporate in some sort of a resolution cool is there any other discussion council member um council member evan thank you chair understanding where this is a good program and we i guess my concern or my my question is that the service disabled veteran owned businesses would still qualify under the language that we have now because they're they're disabled right that is correct Okay. And I guess I'm just, in looking at the language of the House bill that Councilmember Akers had provided in the handout, that language is still, that bill still talks about disabled veterans. and I'm just curious about expanding. If we're trying to mirror what the state's doing, that language is still addressing only disabled veterans. And I'm just curious about the expansion. You're talking about House Bill 497? Yes, that's what was included in my misunderstanding because it talks about disabled veterans and creating that program. But I guess that was the program that was being alluded to that the state was trying to go through. So if we're trying to mirror the state, the state is still only focused on disabled veteran-owned businesses. So I'm curious as to why we're expanding outside of that and trying to include. Well, I think there were, in looking at other communities, again, there's a wide range. People do it differently all over. we kind of felt like including veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses would kind of encompass all the veteran-owned possibilities. But again, that's, I think, depending on what happens with the state bill, we may end up modifying that. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. I think I've got this figured out. Just a little bit confused because on page 39 of our packet, there's some sample language that says we're going to amend resolution number and on and on and on. And we're going to change the definition of disabled, not disabled, but disadvantaged. And then it looks like we didn't do that. What we came up with was a completely separate resolution to deal specifically. It is a separate resolution. I think that was left over from the previous general government committee. Because I've been plowing through this for a change of definition and then didn't find it. I just want to make sure that's the case. This is completely independent of that other resolution. It's definitely a separate resolution. You just threw in the statement that it does not impact that other resolution. Correct. Okay, I've got it. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for allowing me to speak, even though I'm not a member of the committee. Todd, we have a program in place with the goal. Can you talk a little bit about what practically that means in terms of implementation? There's some language in here that says a few things, but practically, what does it mean to have the goal, and how does that work? What it means is that we would expand our outreach efforts to try to find more qualified veteran-owned businesses that can do work for us. A lot of the DBE program that we're currently running that Maryland runs is to help elevate these companies that are out there to the level that they can be successful with us. And that's really the focus of our program is to enable these companies to be able to do business with the city. Okay, and if they are in competition with other firms for RFP, do they also get a preference? How does that work? There is competitive bids where we're just buying items and services like a construction bid or if we're buying a piece of equipment. It is a goal. It's not a requirement. So it is possible that someone could submit a bid that doesn't help us meet any of our goals. And if they've gone through the good faith efforts to try to meet those goals but couldn't do it, we would not disqualify them in that case. When you're looking at an RFP for professional services, there we typically have a portion of the criteria is helping us attain that minority or women-owned business goal, and you assign points to that. It's typically five points, but it can make or break the difference. It can make or break it into close battle. Okay, so if this were to pass, you would add this as a category? We would have a 3% category as well in the RFP criteria, correct. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Are there any other questions? Yes, Council Member Akers. Thank you. I actually have one for Todd. So would that point allocation be included, because I've been on the RFP selection committees, So would it say, do you intend to hire or subcontract women, minorities, and veterans as one single point line, or would it be women and minorities in one and another one for veterans? I think we'd separate it out. Okay. So you all have internal tracking and that kind of thing? Yes, I think that would be easier. Yeah, and again, our 3% was based on what the federal government has done, what some other cities, some other states have done. I do think it's a starting point. You know, I think it's a good place to begin and set a goal and then look at this in a year, look at it in six months and evaluate where we are and what we've done and then make changes if we need to either increase it or decrease it or do different outreach or whatever that looks like from Todd and Marilyn's end of it. And, oh, as far as the state goes, that actually proposed bill was only to certify businesses as veteran-owned or not, and it never left Senate committee. And I was just listing, including that as an example of just how the movement has spread across the country. And the map in our packet shows how many different states have already moved to preference of veteran-owned businesses. And so I just was showing that Kentucky is on that path as well and not necessarily to emulate their legislation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks. Is there any further discussion? I'll entertain a motion to approve the resolution to adopt. Sorry. I'm too sorry. That's something that we do also. So I would like to make a motion that we adopt the resolution included in the packet to provide a 3% minimum goal for certified veteran-owned small businesses and service-disabled veteran-owned businesses. So moved. Thank you. All right, the motion was made by Council Member Akers, seconded by Council Member Henson. Is there any discussion to the motion? There being no discussion, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion passes. And as we move forward, next on our agenda, we have a brief update on the work of the Ethics Ordinance Review Subcommittee. If Council Member Evans, the subcommittee chair, would like to give the committee an update, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The subcommittee has met monthly since it was established in January of this year. The majority of the discussion has centered on the makeup and membership of the commission, specifically whether the system of organizations nominating individuals should be eliminated. There has been lots of discussion on this topic and requests for research on the methods other cities use to appoint members of their ethics boards. At this time, there is a consensus that our current system of organizations nominating individuals should be eliminated and replaced with categories of individuals. Professor Connolly, who is the current chairperson of the Ethics Commission, has been invited, and I believe she has accepted, our invitation to attend the next meeting to discuss amendments previously suggested by the commission and provide insight about the previous concerns on topics the subcommittee was asked to review. The subcommittee's work is still ongoing, and we still have the goal to have a full report by the end of the year. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Evans. And also in the packet today, there is a memorandum that also spells out that Councilmember Bledsoe is going to replace former Councilmember Chris Ford on the subcommittee. So we welcome her on board as well. So are there any questions of Councilmember Evans? there being none then we'll move right on to our next item the last presentation we have on our agenda today is the bluegrass international center and this has been an exciting addition to our city and i'm happy to introduce our multicultural affairs coordinator miss isabel taylor thank you thank you councilmember lamb and other committee council members i I appreciate the opportunity to come and update you on the Bluegrass International Center. If you can go forward. As you may recall, the mission is to help us thrive in today's global environment through the deliberate encouragement of civic engagement, mutual understanding, and economic and artistic diversity. I do need to update you on the numbers and figures I gave you last February. In February, I said that we had 222% growth, and we had 119 foreign languages, but that was based on last fall's Fayette County Public Schools data. And now we have the spring data, and that bumps us up by 17%, so that the international growth rate is now 239%. We've increased 17% from last fall to this spring, and the number of languages is now 125. So we've grown by at least six languages that we're aware of. The center location is at 1306 for Sales Road, and it's getting a lot of repair. There have been some damage from water and mold and other issues that are being looked at. And the Division of Fleet Services and Facilities and Fleet Services is hard at work. And we're hoping that sometime in June, if all goes well. But we're waiting, that's all we're waiting for is for a move-in date. As you know, community partnerships are incredibly important to this endeavor. Our long-term goals remain to continue getting input and support, not only from the international community leadership, but also from local leaders in business, the arts, and academia. We're trying to address a very broad range of community needs, going all the way from literacy to international business development. And our long-term goals is to keep that assessment and provision of multilingual services for that very broad, wide range of community needs. and that addresses the needs of the international community as well as our local community. Our immediate goal and my goal today is to talk about the creation of the Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission. The body of the commission consists of individuals with experience and expertise in international affairs in both public and private sectors. The purpose is to provide information and advice to the mayor and the urban county council concerning issues affecting the foreign-born residents as well as our community at large. It is comprised of 23 members. We have reserved 10 spots for the foreign-born residents who come from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, and the Middle East, reserving two for each. five community members at large who will have international expertise and background experience in international affairs, two council members, six ex-officio members from the mayor's office, CAO, commissioners, and multicultural affairs coordinator. I won't go through all of the duties. I would just like to point out that we are focusing on the promotion of education and civic engagement. It is to provide international expertise, advocacy, and resources for the benefit of the greater community. And we want it to lend vision, guidance, and support to the International Center. And as you can see here, we are wanting you to consider the rebranding of the Bluegrass International Community Center to the Lexington Global Engagement Center. And the rest of the duties foster community relationships. We want the commission to be a networking place where the international community and the local community can meet and discuss and seek resources. We also are thinking very globally so that we have local, state, national, and international leaders and institutions network with us. There's three basic recommendations dealing with the creation of the Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission via the adoption of the Council Ordinance, which you have, I believe, in your packet. We'd like an endorsement of the Department of Social Services' recommendation to rename the proposed Bluegrass International Community Center and identify the facility as the Lexington Global Engagement Center. And support, the third is the support, the council's support for the mayor's fiscal year, 16 proposed budget appropriation for the Office of Multicultural Affairs, which of course will be undertaking the opening of the center. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Ms. Taylor. I'll open up the floor for the council to ask questions. No questions? Well, I do want to, I have a statement, so I'm just going to ask Ms. Evans, Council Member Evans to. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. I know that I'm really excited, and Commissioner Ford, and I talked about this yesterday, and this is just a really awesome opportunity to go to areas that we have not ever gone to before, which it just thrills me for us to do that. I know that we've had some discussion about the marketing aspect of it, and I understand the change from Bluegrass International Center to the Lexington Global Engagement Center, but also wanted to just make the statement that I know that you all are going to start working on some branding and marketing, and I think that we need to really think about how the title or the name of the center rolls off your tongue and how it gets people interested to find out more about it. So I'm hoping that through the marketing aspect of it that you all would think about, not that I'm against the Lexington Global Engagement Center, but I do think that we need to find something that is really a really quippy, interesting branding. So I hope that, you know, I'll just throw out Global Lex is something that we talked about yesterday. I think there's some ideas out there, and that's all I have to say. Council member lamb we have a meeting with the Lex arts and the committee that is advancing the arts and culture aspect of this and they would like to do a community-wide contest to have a logo and maybe a branding so I think that that's something that we will bring up it's the Lexington global that's That's wonderful. Thank you so much. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair. Are there, okay, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I just, I didn't want you to leave without me showing you how much I appreciate. And just to thank you for the work that you've put into this. I know that your expertise is invaluable. So I didn't want you to leave without saying that. And I know, you know, the work that you've done and your dedication to those living in our community that come from all over the world. Thank you very much, Council Member Henson. And I have to say that I'm working with a lot of community members who have greater expertise than I do. We're counting on them to provide the input and the assistance. This really is truly a community-involved process, and I'm very grateful for everyone's support and input. Thank you for bringing them together. Bye. Thanks. Councilmember Maloney. I, too, want to echo on the great job you've done, because when I was a CAO, you and I met years ago and had a dream, and I look like we've come to this dream today. And I want to commend you and all your hard work. It's amazing how many people, countries we have now in Lutton, and I just want to thank you for all the hard work that you've done. and thank you so much for everyone for your support thanks all right if there's no further discussion then i would entertain a motion to approve the ordinance creating the mayor's international affairs advisory commission and endorsing the name of the facility to be the lexington global engagement center second council member maloney and made the motion and council member henson seconded is there any discussion on the motion no all in favor of the motion say aye any opposed all right then that ordinance uh is approved or the creation of it um thank you Thank you, Social Services. Now I guess we have a little bit of time to go over the referred items on the referred page. Council Member Henson, is there any update on the workforce investment and training information? I apologize. I don't have any updates, but this is an ongoing issue. So I will get with Commissioner Ford and see what we might be able to come up with for committee. All righty. Maybe for June. Okay. All righty. Thank you. The aquatics program design, Councilmember Scutchfield, do you have any thoughts on when? Yes. I'm proud to say that we met yesterday and reviewed the RFPs for the aquatics design. and I believe one has been extended. I don't know if you all want to report out while it's going on. I think obviously it would be not until the fall. We hope to have them completed during the summer months while the pools are active so that it's actually talking to people to get an idea. So I would say we probably won't have a report out until the fall. Awesome. Great. Thank you. Thank you. And Parks Foundation, Council Member Scutchfield? I don't think Jeff's in here. I think this is ongoing just because we haven't hired the new Parks Director yet, although I also sat on that hiring committee. I think we're very close. So I think probably let the Parks Director get their feet wet and then kind of barrage him or her with a lot of stuff. Sure. Absolutely. Thank you, Jeff. And then the review of the ethics ordinance. Council Member Evans, do you think that we could have another update in about two months? Sure. Okay. All righty. And then the Bluegrass International Center. Commissioner Ford and I actually talked about that we should keep this in committee so that we can have an update in the fall on the moving forward of the facility, if that's okay with the committee. Okay. And EMS service fees. Council Member Henson, do you think we should keep this in committee for review in the fall? I think it would be okay to remove it. However, we would like a report from Commissioner Ford like six months into the program. So I don't think it's necessary to keep it in committee unless it's... So I would make a motion to remove EMS fee services. Second. all right council member henson made a motion to remove the item council member maloney seconded the motion is there any discussion on the motion no all right all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed thank you that motion passes then the inclusion of the veterans of disadvantaged business enterprises council member acres are you fine with removing this item? Yes. I was going to make a motion to remove item 7. So moved. All right. The motion made by Council Member Akers and seconded by Council Member Henson to remove item number 7. Any discussion on the motion? There being none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And I guess a Masters and Station Park update master plan. Council Member Akers? Yes, I was going to make a motion to remove number eight as well and incorporate that plan update into the overall parks master plan update that is pending as well. So I'll make that motion to remove. All right. Is there a second? Second. Okay, Council Member Akers made a motion, seconded by Council Member Scutchfield. Any discussion on the motion? There being none. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That motion passed. Is there any other discussion? Is there a motion to adjourn? Second. All right. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thanks. Thank you.