# Special Budget COW - November 5, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · November 5, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3820 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3820?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-11-05 - **Last revised**: November 5, 2015 - **Length**: 17,224 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council Special Budget Committee of the Whole convened on November 5, 2015, at 4:00 PM in the 5th Floor Council Chamber. The meeting focused on a single agenda item regarding fund balance discussion, which was informational in nature. No motions were voted on during this special committee meeting, and no public comments were heard. The session served as a working discussion for council members to review and analyze the city's fund balance situation without taking formal legislative action. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed multiple budget appropriations and funding allocations across various county departments totaling over $4 million in expenditures. **Major Infrastructure and Equipment Funding:** • $1,500,000 appropriation for Fleet and Facilities/General Services for a hybrid option for parking garage repair • $800,000 appropriation for Police Department vehicle allotment in addition to existing reallocation • $650,000 appropriation for General Services & Social Services for park improvements at Idle Hour • $400,000 appropriation for Public Safety for the Jordan Building project **Technology and Professional Services:** • $200,000 appropriation for Chief Information Officer for additional Professional Services funding • $72,500 appropriation for Chief Administrator's Office for an audit of the Human Resources Department **Emergency Management Enhancements:** • $5,000 appropriation for Emergency Management for Notification System maintenance • $3,800 appropriation for Emergency Management for Alert and Notification Program • $2,500 appropriation for Emergency Management for annual SNE costs **Specialized Equipment and Services:** • $67,000 appropriation for Environmental Services for snow removal equipment for GCUFL • $42,000 appropriation for Coroner for funding autopsy cabinets and exam equipment **Grant Funding:** • $280,000 in grant opportunities for Social Services The financial actions demonstrate significant investment in public safety infrastructure, emergency preparedness systems, and departmental operations. The largest single expenditure focused on parking garage repairs, while substantial allocations were also made for police vehicle procurement and park improvements. Emergency management received multiple smaller appropriations to enhance alert systems and maintenance capabilities. ## Fund Balance Discussion The council held a discussion on fund balance matters during the November 5, 2015 meeting. The discussion covered several key areas including link referrals, administration requests, and council member requests related to the fund balance. This agenda item was structured as an informational discussion rather than an action item requiring a vote. The purpose was to provide council members with an overview of current fund balance status and related administrative matters. The discussion encompassed three main categories: • **Link referrals** - Items that had been referred from other sources or previous meetings • **Administration requests** - Requests originating from city administration regarding fund balance matters • **Council member requests** - Specific requests or inquiries raised by individual council members No specific speakers were identified in the available records for this discussion item. The session served as an informational briefing to keep council members updated on fund balance issues and to address any questions or concerns they might have regarding the city's financial position. The outcome of this discussion was informational in nature, meaning no formal action was taken. The item provided council members with necessary background information on fund balance matters that may inform future budget decisions and financial planning discussions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Full transcript No, you don't know me well And every little thing only time will tell But you believe the things that I do And we'll see it through Life can be short or long Love can be right or wrong And if I chose the one I'd like to help me through I'd like to make it with you Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon everybody. Good afternoon. Welcome. It's a special budget committee of the whole meeting to consider the fund balance. Definitely have a quorum. I think we've got two other council members who are on the way in. just to kind of remind council members and to explain for the everybody else who's here in the public we're going to go through the list that we have generated that would begin with the referrals that came came from the links committees that did budget work in the spring then the administration requests and then councilmember requests which have been put in an up and not in a random order so that they're not you know in any specific order by preference and what we've done in the past and unless there's objection we'll do this again so go through item by item vote each item up or down tentatively until we get through the whole list and see what the total is then we'll go back and affirm that what we've done is what we want to do so we'll go through everything individually up or down each item see what that tallies and if we need to then go back and delete or if we have other motions to change then we'll do that council members i believe you're also aware that council member massadi's list which did not get submitted within the time frame she has provided for everybody and unless there's objection i would ask that we consider that list at the very end and then council members can make their own decision about whether they were submitted in time or not and how they want to take action on that there's one other item that i think we might want to do first and that is council member brown has submitted a proposal that we would take the entire fund balance and divide it by by the 12 council districts. And if the council was to approve that, it would mean there'd be no money for anything else. And I would entertain a motion to, at this point, change our rules so that we consider that item out of order, vote it up or down, and see where we stand. If we vote that up, we can then close the meeting and go home. So is there an objection to that? I would entertain a motion. If somebody will make a motion to take that one item out of order. Motion to take that one item out of order. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Let me open it up here since I've probably got the only request that takes all the dollars together. So let's get that out on the table. And I appreciate your comment there. First off, it was not my intention to really take the $7 million and say that we divided up without some stipulations and without some concerns. on what it could be spent for. Really, I put that out to promote discussion. And having said that, I want to apologize to the council members at large because the number probably should have been divided by 15, and I apologize for that. And my main concern of putting this up was infrastructure. And from talking to several council members, we we we knew we were concerned with parks sidewalks and paving were kind of the top areas that we were concerned with so that was one of the things i felt like that we could we if we had a lot of dollars that we ought to be able to promote that and and have them spent on infrastructure items and non they would be non-reoccurring items so and i felt like that each division each council member really knows what their council district needs in the way of infrastructure so I felt like you know this might be a possible solution having said all that I think the 7 million is probably a top number I would rather drop that down so my motion at this point in time would to be to put $4 million into paving. So you're amending your request to? Well, it was a request, but it wasn't a motion request. This motion here is that we put $4 million out for discussion, $4 million into a paving, which would be allocated to the districts accordingly. Well, so there's a motion on the floor. Well, this would have to be, is this an amend, are you amending your motion? Yeah, if that's what you want. Well, we have a motion on the floor, so we either have to vote it up or down or. On the 7 million, you've got a motion? Yes. No? The motion is to take out a vote. Yes. Well, that would be the first one. That's the first motion. Oh, that's right. Absolutely correct. I'll talk to him. So. thank you council member stinnett uh council member lamb you wish to speak to the motion which is to take this out of order before we discuss it on its merits this is just to to take to take this one item out of order and consider it now no i won't speak to that right now council member evans i'll say i would be in favor of this motion because that i i think if we start talking about that we will this meeting will go much faster um as you alluded to in the herald leader. So I think we most definitely need to take this because I think this is going to be the center of what the discussion that develops. So I am in favor of taking this out of order because everything else might be moot at that point. Thank you. Councilmember Scotchfield. I have no problem taking it out of order. I do have a question on whether the motion that is we're taking out of order is going to be the actual motion that is then made. And that would be my concern. So I believe the intention, I believe, is that we would then discuss that particular item on its merits at the head of our list before we do anything else. Okay. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. If you would not mind logging in with your votes, yay or nay. I need three more. Okay, that motion. Wait for everybody to vote. Last call. Anybody else want to vote? We got one more. You can't. Peggy votes. Councilman Mahenson is a yes vote. That motion passes. Now we'll take that item up. And the item is to allocate the $7 million across the 12 districts. That's on page. I wanted to amend it. Okay. But I don't know where the motion is to where I can amend it. There's a motion there, but it hasn't been seconded for the $7 million straight. We're pretty clear. So there'd be a motion to approve item. I haven't got the page number. I'm sorry. I believe it's on page 4 at the top, and the proposal is to take the entire fund balance, $7 million, divided by 12 districts for prioritizing capital needs in each district. So moved. Second. A motion and a second. So now, discussion on this motion. Councilmember Bledsoe Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify if that full $7 million would be dismissive of all the administration requests it would just be for council request and not to take up what they've asked. I'm just making sure I'm understanding the motion correctly I think given this given the fund balance that we have if we allocate $7 million that way that's pretty much everything else I'm going to amend the motion. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Brown. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to amend the motion because that motion, the way you're presented it and everything come through, that was really a suggestion to get that out there so that we could have some discussion. After two or three days' thought on that, and I've already alluded to the fact, the reason for it, and I would like to amend the motion so that there would be monies left over to deal with some other areas of concern. And I feel like that paving, we could certainly use $4 million into the paving project, and then that would be divvied up the way our calculations were done a month ago. So moved that we reduced that amount to $4 million for paving. I have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Brown, would you consider, you had discussed, instead of the 12 districts, including the at-large, so would you consider amending that to the payment allocation along the 15 of us, or are you just talking about 12 districts? eliminating the division of 12 or 15 because I don't think that's that's I don't think it's reasonable in the fact what I wanted to do is put it just straight into streets and roads for paving and then we would deal with that like we did the 10 million in paving so how we therefore it's not necessarily every council member is not dictating what they can do with that particular amount well anything else that you need would be would come out of that so with the four million you're saying that would not I guess how it would be equitable that's what I want to know just the same way it was equitable when we did the ten million dollar paving we went through a computation and a calculation and everybody each district would have each district but we're not allocating a fund balance to a district that's what my men money is I don't want allocate a particular dollar to a district I want to allocate for me and out of the 7 million to the paving which will in would really come down to every district would benefit okay thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor councilmember Brown do you happen to know what the the numbers would look like based on the $4 million figure for each district by chance for your suggestion? I'd say you'd take 40 percent, four-tenths of what your number that you got in the fall, the last calculation you got. You could roughly take 40 percent of that. In other words, if you got $700,000, 40 percent of that would probably be your allocation out of streets and roads. But what this does is it allows streets and roads or a division to tell us how much money we got involved. And then this, you know, this is not going to be done, this paving, until next spring. That would be our spring allotment. Okay. And my next question would be for the administration. And do I see Mr. Miller back there? Yes. Or Mr. Holmes, either one. And I'm just curious, is that even feasible to get that accomplished in the spring? The answer to that is yes. Answer is yes, please? Yes. Yes? It is feasible. All right. All right. Thank you. I'll leave my comments at that. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Brown, I want to make sure I'm clear. Your original proposal in here was $7 million divided, well, it says between 12 council districts, But you're proposing to take $4 million of this and divide it between the 12 council members, council districts, I should say, for paving or put it in streets and roads. Exactly. And they've got a little different communication of that. In other words, we're not setting up a fund for each council members for part of that $4 million. It's designated for paving, and that's where it's restricted to. That's a non-reoccurring item, and it locks it in for that particular item only, and that's infrastructure that we all know that we are desperately in need of. And so streets and roads would tell us how much each of us would have for paving. And then we would pick our streets like we did. So the balance of that would be $3 million, and that would be divided up? No. No, you're dropping the $3 million. Okay. I'm in the drops of $3 million. Okay. All the other things we've discussed. I wanted to make sure. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have been here and served with Council Member Brown at a time when we did something similar to this. during the Miller administration. What I feel today in relation to this motion is there's some votes here to do this because it makes this meeting more expedient. And I don't think that's the best use of all of our time, much less the public's time. I think there's a completely different mindset about openness and making policy in public that is in play now that wasn't in play 8, 10, 12 years ago. And I think that just taking these dollars and shoving them into a paving fund where I think the public would say, well, when and where is that going to be, which gets you down to the timing thing of we could spend these dollars now on a multitude of things that are listed here. And if we decide to put this aside just for paving, to me it's like a Band-Aid in the wind based on the information we have most recently received on what our true paving need is. And while we're still trying to decipher what all the data is that we've collected on it, I think you yourself placed the issue in committee to come up with a five-year plan, and I'm supportive of that. In the meantime, we're faced with a wonderful opportunity to do several things in the meantime. And while there was a time and a place where I would have been supportive of this I think today with with these times and the multitude of needs I think we need to take our time call opportunities and spend the money the best we can this particular use might not be the best one Thank you Thank you councilmember Evans Thank You vice mayor and I'm curious to you know why councilmember Brown you're limiting it to just paving now and then why not and actually what you're proposing works in my favor if we go by those same numbers um but thinking about other thinking citywide and up in other council members that you know fell at the bottom of the list um why not divvy up that four million equally. I'm curious to know what, why you're not doing that, because I think the city would be more concerned that everyone gets perhaps an equal amount of money. I mean, that, it just seems like an equitable way to do it. I'm just curious, knowing that I very well might be at top of that list but just well yeah no I know I am curious about you know again why why let me get it to paving and and why not just do an equal distribution having served on the council a number of years before and knowing what the public and what the newspaper and the media all come into some people will get the idea that if you divide that up 12 ways then that gives that council member of fund to do some things in their district that that may not be kosher to everybody else so i just felt like you just keep it out of the politics put it into paving and do our allocation just like we did the 10 million and it makes it simple and nobody can really raise a question that we're not using public dollars for one of the most important things that we have in this city and what people pay their taxes for, and paving in streets and roads is certainly on top of my list. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I want to remind everybody we've got about $13 million that we budget this year to be block-topped. We're getting some of it done, and most of it will be done next year. To add another $4 million, that'll put you up close to $17 or $18 million. dollars, but I mean I know that's an important issue, but also I see there's a lot of other important issues on these lists, and if we do it the way you're doing this list, we're going to be out of money before we get to anybody and personally, I would rather that we go through the whole list first, not vote on anything, let everybody plead their case so to at least be fair to everybody, but it seems like if we're going to go down each one, we could be out of money because everybody's got a great story to say, and it's important, but I don't want to be sitting here halfway through the sheet and some of you council members don't get to plead your case and you don't have the money. So I'm not going to vote on this right now. I don't think we should vote on anything until we hear everybody's concerns and cases because they might have a good story to tell. So I'm not going to support this motion right now. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you. I just want to say as nice as new paved roads are in my district and knowing my district better than anyone up here, I think, that I have a lot of new roads and new subdivisions that don't need paving. But what I do need are parks amenities. With the growth, with the development in my district, we don't have parks. There are neighborhoods built, thousands of homes without a playground, without a basketball court. So that's why my entire request is based on building new parks to serve families, because that's what I hear is the number one request. So if you want to divide up four million and let me decide what's best for my district, it's not politics. It's what I hear from constituents asking me for services and resources in their neighborhoods. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I'll have a question for Albert, if you can come back up. Can you tell us how far along we are with the current paving list? Because as Councilman Maloney said, we've already budgeted $12 million in this current paving cycle, and that's budgeting money without a plan. We don't have a plan for paving yet. We have put this into committee. We don't have a financial plan to address paving. So before I get to that point, can you tell us how far along in the districts we are, how many 12 of the 12 have been paved? I don't have that information in front of me. I can get it relatively quick. The commissioner might be able to. So on the district, we have paved 4, 8, 7, 10, 11, and we're in 6 right now, hoping to finish 6 this week with the weather holding out. And we have three, two, five, and nine left for the fall, and it's all depending on how long the weather holds out, the nice weather that we've had. On the arterial paving, we have done the three sections that we had planned to do previously in terms of that. So we've done pretty well so far for a short fall paving cycle. But ATS has really stepped up and done a marvelous job in helping us with that. So we have about four districts left, five? Four, I think. Four, okay. And then have you had an accounting of each district and how much money they've spent or not spent? No, we haven't at this time and won't until the fall cycle is finished. then our intention is to do a full accounting to the whole council on all of the district money, and then the leftover would roll with whatever we haven't been able to finish in the fall into the spring paving cycle. So we don't know what that is yet? We do not know. Thank you. You know, I, for one, have put a lot of money and a lot of votes and a lot of motions towards getting more paving. And I would typically agree with Councilman Brown. But I think with the new data we received, we don't have a plan yet. We don't even know if those estimates are even accurate. This will be the first opportunity we will see in the spring after everyone's done to get a real accounting of are they way off or are they right on. Until we know that, we don't really know how much money we need to put towards paving. And I, for one, would rather have a better estimate from what we've been doing. And until we have a five-year, ten-year plan on how we're going to fund this and then what method we're going to use, I just think this is putting money to a place that could be used in our own garage out back and other areas that are desperately needed. And I think the money will be there for paving when we actually have a real plan to fund and I would just wait until then Thank you. Thank you, vice mayor Thank you There's nobody else signed up to speak I'd just like to add my comment and then I'll call for the vote and that is I am going to vote in favor of the amendment because I think Four million is better than seven and then I'm going to vote no On the amended motion so that we don't put the money into paving at this time I agree with most of the comments that have been made And I won't reiterate them, but I won't. So just to remind council members, the vote now is to amend the proposal from $7 million to $4 million to make it for paving, not to be allocated across the districts. Any questions? Everybody understand the motion, the amendment. All those in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. And please log in. I need two votes. Two people now? Nine-five. That amendment fails. Now we're back to the original motion, which is to place to allocate $7 million to the 12 districts for the district council members to allocate. Is there any further discussion on the motion? And I haven't got, I need a screen. Has anybody signed in? On the voting screen. There we go. No one wants us to speak. Okay. Does any Council Member Evans on the motion? Okay. I need some instruction. Would it be proper to amend that motion? Okay. Yes. Based on the conversation that has occurred, comments made from Council Member Akers, I think clarifying the issue with paving in from Council Member Stenet, I would move to amend the $7 million to $4 million across the 15 Council members for capital projects. I have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a second. is there discussion on the motion the motion is to amend to reduce the number to four million and to allocate across the 15 council members for council member evidence specific I'm sorry what kind of projects capital projects did you say capital for infrastructure okay discussion on the motion councilmember acres I was going to comment before and ask or suggest that we hear the administration's requests and then take the balance of that once we've made decisions and then divide it perhaps this has changed it so I guess my question is yeah I couldn't do that why four is I mean it just seems arbitrary and would capital or infrastructure include parks is that infrastructure um okay so i guess i would want i would like more information from somebody on what you propose to do with three or where where y4 what you know some logic behind the proposal thank you anybody else wish to speak to the motion i i'll answer the question why four since it's on the motion because that's what council member Brown said four million. So I was trying to be consistent with with his original intent Thank you councilmember farmer While I enjoy the spirit of this motion too, I just I just think that in an age of information and openness What happens is you give two hundred and sixty seven thousand dollars to each council member to do with as they wish and And all would have to be sanctioned by the council, but it really wouldn't I don't think meet the public test of would it have been talked about here? Would people understand what it was balanced against? I just would feel I know it's messy making this sausage, but I kind of enjoy it. It turns out, but I just think it would be better off for us to to use these funds by going through the list rather than trying to disperse them out into in much more of what I consider a private manner. Thank you. Councilmember Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Evans, would this be divided between 15 council members or 12? That's 15. My motion was for all 15. Okay. I personally, I know I have several projects that have been funded, other projects that have not been funded. And then when I look at this list, there are, I am next to last again on this list. It doesn't matter whether we do a drawing or not. I'm Council District 11. And, you know, some of these requests are $7 million. And I'm like, well, by the time they get to Council District 11, there won't be any funds left. If we fund everything on this list. Or if perhaps, I'm not sure if there would have been an easier way to do this, but I'm just saying maybe each council district should get one item to bring for a vote, and we would move to the next one in that order until. That's not bad. Everybody gets a shot at the title. Or I would support Council Member Evans. but motion thank you thank you council member lamb i will say that um i like the concept but i would like to and i'm not going to make this as an amendment right now because this is an amendment already on the floor but i'm just going to make this statement i would like to suggest that we use five million across 15 and then give the other two to the administration But I'm just dangling that out there for thoughts. But at this point, I would like to not support the $4 million for $15 million. Thank you. Council Member Hensley? Well, thank you, Chair, Vice Mayor. Considering the 12th District did not have any requests, and maybe to break the logjam on this, so maybe can I amend to table this until after the administration has spoken? and let them proceed. Would you like to make a motion? I mean, it's a parliamentary question, but... You can make a motion to table. To table until after the administration... I'll second. You have a motion and a second to table the motion that's on the floor. Until the administration is presented. I'm sorry, until the administration, not everything else, but until the administration's requests have been considered. Now I need a ruling. Is that non-debatable? Non-debatable. Don't. Don't. Yeah. That's a non-debatable motion. All those in favor, please say aye. To what? Motion to table. All those in favor, please say aye. and let's get a voting screen up if we can all opposed that motion fails pretty sure okay that then we're back to discussion of the motion that's on the floor and I need to get the screen back up. Council Member Akers. Can I pass? Okay. I've got nobody else signed up at the moment. I want to add my comment. I've, we've dealt with these questions before in budget sessions and I have been I I think, consistently opposed to doing any allocation across all of the council members. I would agree with Council Member Farmer. I think it sends the wrong message to the public about the way in which we make decisions. There may be, in some perfect world, 15 equal needs, but we're not in a perfect world. I think our hard job is to weigh the options that we have before us about how to spend this money to make those decisions and not to simply ask each council member to make that decision for their own district. So I will be voting no. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess, you know, when I look at fund balance every single time, I mean, this is not an easy process for those that have done this before. For those that are new to it, you will remember this is not an easy process. But this is, we keep on saying it's found money. It's a fund balance. I mean, the reality is this is money that taxpayers have given us. And so I think the infrastructure key to it is important. But at the same time, I'm cautious about saying, you know, equally across, because like Siobhan said, you have new roads in some areas and you don't need it you may need it for other stuff um i think i'm i'm voting no because i think each one of the issues that we've brought up independently deserve to be discussed thank you thank you councilmember henson and again i will say you know i've got to take up for my district here because I'm next to last on the list. And many of these requests far exceed the amount of money we have. So I don't see it as being a fair process. I see a fair process in either dividing the money up, like I said earlier, or letting each request have one item and then move on. Thank you. Thank you. There is no... At this, we have a motion on the floor. So, and... Council Member Massadi. I'm not sure if this is appropriate or not, but Council Member Henson has suggested that we each pick one item from a list out of each council district. That, to me, seems the most equitable. We choose one item that we think, whether or not there will be any money left at the end, I don't know if that's going to happen or not. But this has always been a real difficult process. And how we make it equitable for all depends whether you're first or you're last or how much money is left over. But if we could maybe choose one item, hopefully at least we could have some deliberation over that and then move forward. Thank you. Before I recognize Council Member Evans, if I can just speak to the question of process. What I had proposed is what we used when we went through the budget process in the spring. and that is all of the items that were remaining to be funded, all the suggestions from council members were to be submitted. We would take them in random order, which is what we've done. We would go through the list once with up or down votes, and then we would go back and ratify those votes so that the people at the end randomly are not penalized. penalized. Even if we've spent all the money and more, the question is, on each item, is it an up or down vote? Do you agree or not agree that this ought to be funded? And if we spend more money than we have, we'll have to go back and take some things out. That's what we did in the spring. Now, we didn't have to go back in the spring because we met the budget items. We met so that's just procedurally and if people want to point of order Vice Mayor I believe that this discussion should be pertaining to the motion on the floor so I'll call for the question question's been called all those in favor of calling the question please say aye any opposed that motion carries so now we're back to the motion as amended, which is to allocate I believe the motion as amended is to allocate $4 million across 15 council members for them to determine the use of that money for infrastructure. That's the motion on the floor. Any further? I called the motion. I'm sorry. The motion has been called. All those in favor, please say aye and log in. All those opposed, say no. Log in. We have two council members who have not voted. Now we have one who's not voted. That motion passes 8 to 7. I'm sorry. Is there a question about the recording of the votes? Is it 12 districts or 15? 15. It's a 12 on the screen. It's a 12 on the screen. This is the original motion. Yes. The original motion. That's the original motion. It's not the motion as amended. Yes. Yes. No. I didn't mean it. Yes. And now, if any council member would like to make a motion about how we're proceeding, if you want to change the way in which proceeding, now is the time to make that motion. Council Member Lamb. I am going to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to allocate $5 million divided by 15 and give $2 million to the administration. I so move. uh procedurally that motion has just been passed now you're how no no sir you've got a motion on the floor the original emotion on the floor i thought it was her amendment just passed wasn't the amendment passed then we were agreeing on the motion voting on the motion as amended that is correct I'm trying not to complicate things I promise I am not trying to complicate things I didn't want to stack the motion's amendments the amended motion So now I'll accept the ruling that's been suggested and say that we're now voting on the amended motion, which is to allocate $4 million across 15 districts for capital projects. Is there any further discussion? And I just made a motion, with all due respect, to amend that to $5 million, allocate $5 million across 15 different ways, and to give $2 million to the administration. I have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. Council Member Brown. I don't mind the $5 million being split, but the $2 million back to the administration, I think, is to me, this fund balance that's left belongs to this body. The mayor and the budget and everything that we went through, they already took $10 million out of this $19 million fund balance. So just remember, they set their priorities then. Now, that doesn't mean that what they're asking for doesn't have priorities, and they may have just happened. But I think we need to deal with each one of their items along with the rest of ours. So that's why I was supporting at least the $4 million. And then the $3 million would fall into not only the administration can make their pitch, but each council member. So I'm speaking against your amendment. Motion. I see no other council members signed up. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. All opposed? No. Please log in with your vote. That motion fails. Now we're back to, I believe, the original amended motion. Any further discussion? Yes, sir. Call a question. Well, I'm signed up. I've got one. Just a council member Farmer. All right. So this is, we've now amended this three times, and this is the correct verbiage before us? It's my understanding. All right. I think district council members should think about what will the at-large members do with these funds. I think the district council members should think about openness of process and due process in the public rather than taking the money and running to your office to try to spend it, because that's how this is going to be spun in public in my personal estimation. I think it's important for us to make decisions on behalf of the community with the community being present and giving input rather than running to our favorite spending list upstairs and making decisions that are not really part of what may be better for the whole. There's no doubt individual council members do know better and they do spend money in their district Wisely, but it forgoes the opportunity for the public to be involved in the conversation. I think that is very important I will vote against this. Thank you Thank you councilmember Hensley If this passes I will pave roads with the money that we did not request that we will receive so thank you Thank you councilmember Brown This is in response to Councilmember Farmer. I think you're respectfully, I think you're not representing your district like I would like to represent my district. And I think each council member knows what their district needs are, and they're far above what percentage that we're taking out here. And I think that if we do have this money, I'm going to use mine for paving. so I'll let's get that out there because that has been my goal and objective is to put as much money in paving as I can so I think each councilmember and I respect each councilmember that they will know the best for their district and the three at large can do some things that they want to do for community-wide and I'm going to support this motion thank you councilmember hansen thank you vice mayor i'm going to support the motion as well because i know i have a few streets that need to be paved i have a few sidewalks that need to be connected i would um suggest that we put something in place where this money is identified i don't know how it was done in the past, but I can see where Kelts Member Farmer is coming from, but we each have neighborhood development funds that are allocated, and we do that by the association or organization. So I just think each one of these projects should be done in a way that it is transparent. But I will support it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. I've got to tell you, I think using the NDF funds as an example is poor because the NDF fund process and procedure that we use now is more secretive than anything else that goes on in government, and those are public funds that are spent. Nobody can see where they come from. They can tell where they go. They can't tell who gave money to what because it's all covered up in the way that it is legislatively been set up by this council. I don't like the way those funds are budgeted and used because the public cannot see what goes on with them. I believe the same thing will be potentially true here, even though some may just use it to do asphalt with. Others may not. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you chair. I was just gonna make one comment and that is that several council members did receive fund balance this summer in our budget back in June when we had our own individual requests some people got funding for those things and I would like to remind them that some of us defer all of our things and then I need a little more than what is divided by 15 to do the two projects that I have that are much bigger than the district honestly just throwing that out there thank you thank you I have nobody else signed up to speak so I'll take a vote council members all in favor please say aye and log in all opposed no That motion passes. That would bring us now back to the beginning of our list, which is on page one, and it begins with the referrals from links. First item is a request from the Council Member Brown related to the coroner. Is there a motion to approve this funding? You know, the procedure you're going through now, I'm a little confused as to how I can bring this out because actually the links had three council members on there, so I don't know what they might think about it, But I would move on the coroners, the chief information officer, all of those items that are emergency management, all of those. I would delete those off of this list. But I don't know that I have that say, but you ask me since they come out of that link. These are referrals that came from links that were specified to be included in the fund balance discussion. If no one moves to approve them, then they will not be approved. Okay. But you called on me to do something? Well, it's got your name on it as the chair of the links, I guess. I'm not going to approve them because we've got $3 million left, and I think there's a lot more priorities, and these will be budgeted items in the coming next year. That's fine. Thank you. So no motion on the first item. The next item is the chief. Is I'm sorry council member acres. I just wanted to try to organize our process, I guess a little bit. if someone wants to carry forward the link recommendations, I guess we can make those motions if someone wants to. If no one wants to, then don't. I don't know that we need to go line by line. And then I really liked, and I think lots of other council members liked, Council Member Henson's recommendation that we just go, you know, one at a time. So the administration, you're up first, so you would get to present one, whichever one of your favorites, and then go down to the next. Skutchfield would be next, and then Bledsoe, and we just go one at a time. And I think that's the most fair and equitable without, you know, going depleting the funds and wasting time with up and downs and just trying to organize and be most efficient. Thank you. So, Council members, I tried to address the procedural question before. Or is it the wish of the council to consider the way in which we want to proceed at this time before we consider any other items? Council Member Scotchfield. I'm signed up here. My funding that I ask for in my council district is above the amounts that I have now been allocated. Even though I would like to have the opportunity, I think by dividing it by 15, that's taken ours out of the equation. I mean, the whole intention was divided equally. So, I mean, I think at this point, we don't divide the council members or we don't look at individual council member requests. That's, I mean, otherwise, I think we're... So there's another $3 million plus to allocate. And the question is, how do we want to do that? Councilmember Farmer. With respect to all the items on page one that are labeled fund balance referrals from LINCS, I move to place all those in consideration for the FY17 budget and remove them from consideration today. So moved. I have a motion and a second to remove all the items that have been referred from the links in the spring. I have a motion to second. Discussion on the people who signed up for discussion of this motion. Council Member Hensley. I guess I would question on some of these how they would impact this year's budget to execute if there are limitations like the chief information officer you know if they're asking for $200,000 worth of services to do a project that they've got in their budget now then if we move it to the next year then they can't execute that in this year so I don't know that that's a logical move may I get councilmember Gibbs are you speaking to this motion councilmember Gibbs are you on for a different are you on for this motion are you signed up for this okay councilmember farmer these were things that were talked about during the budget discussions which you were not a part of at the time that were reported out by the individual links but did not get funded so therefore they have not been programmed into these folks budgets because they were not funded what I'm trying to say is since they weren't funded already for this year let them go ahead and roll them into 17 and try to get them funded then and let's move on to next page does anybody does anybody else wish to speak to the motion the motion is to as it says on your screen referral items from page one to the administration for budget recommendations in the spring councilmember Brown thank you chair James Brown yeah I guess I just wanted to ask the chief information officer the two hundred thousand dollars is that going to hold anything up I know I know part of that discussion, I think, was about maybe somebody, the personnel for the new website for the city and some other projects. This is definitely going to hold up some projects, so let me just go back a little bit. Our original request was for $700,000. I got funded for $500,000, $200,000 being cut. I did not ask for any staff for this year because I needed to start programs with highly skilled people that can do cybersecurity, that can redesign the website and other projects. So right now, that is how I'm operating. That would bring some of those projects to a halt. All right. Sorry, I got one more question. Does any of those projects have to do with the Wi-Fi capability in this room? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Mayor. Sally, looking over this list, do you think any of these items are critical that you know of? The one on this page, the one that would be more critical than any of the others right now, would be the Chief Information Officer. If you remember, we didn't fund that. It wasn't you that cut that. It was the administration that cut it. And we didn't fund it. Aldona asked for $700,000, and we put in $500,000. And the reason we cut it is we didn't see the spend rate equal $700,000, and that's why we cut it. Now, let me flip over, though, and say what's happening this year. The spend rate, you know, sometimes you just get log jammed and you can't spend that money. The spend rate this year is much quicker because these projects are coming online. So that's, I think if we had to redo our decision and our recommendation to you during the budget, we would have put this $200 in. If that helps. Thank you. Want to talk about the seniors then? Sure. I will amend this motion to keep the, now I can't even find it, this one. Yeah, the chief informational officer, additional funding for professional services, $200,000, to keep it on the list and not include it in the motion. So moved. I motion to second to amend the motion to exclude the funding for the $200,000 for additional funding for professional services for the CIO discussion on the motion councilmember Fred Brown thank you fast mayor Sally CAO when we went through links you know all these items on here were important but they weren't budgeted so you know when we looked at that we were concerned you know basically in the links process and this is the way I looked at it, is we really put everything on here that you all would not budget, but the particular directors or commissioners, maybe a wish list or maybe something that was just left off. Now, my question to you is, if this $200,000 is so important, why is it not in your administration listing that you're bringing forth for us to review? Well, that's a question. we didn't put it on our list because it was on the links list and we knew it would be good answer thank you council member James Brown thank you chair the opportunity grants portion of it. Sorry, maybe I'm looking at the wrong list. Sorry. We're still on page one. And probably will be for a while. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Our CIO, could you come back up? I know Councilmember Brown asked a question. I don't think it was answered. Is the Wi-Fi for this building, you had sent some estimates for cost of doing that project. Yes. I know it's not in this $200,000, but where is that request at? That is the request that we've actually discussed, and we can actually do the lease to do this over a four-year period and provide better Wi-Fi in this building. So you don't need any money from fund balance in order to entertain the lease? I think that that is at least the recommendation, and I have to call Sally up for that. I didn't see it on the administration's list, so I just make sure you had the money. What we felt on this particular one, it was one of those reoccurring costs again, and we felt that we would be better doing a budget amendment to take care of that. I just want to make sure it wasn't part of the $200,000 when Council Member Brown asked. No, that is not. Good question. But we have it covered in any event. Okay, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I have nobody else signed up to speak to the amendment. So if you would indicate your vote by logging in, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed? No. I don't have everybody in, but that motion passes. that would bring us back to the original that amendment passes now the amended motion is to delete everything on the page except for that one item for the discussion on the motion as amended seeing none all those in favor please say aye and log in all opposed no Again, we're missing a few votes, but that motion carries. That would bring us to page two. I must have wanted to consider the 200,000. We need to. I'm sorry. You're exactly right. That does not. All we did was exclude the 200,000 from deletion. Now is anyone prepared to make a motion regarding that item? Second. A motion and a second to approve the item for $200,000. Further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please say aye. All opposed, no. No. Then please log in and we'll take the vote electronically. Three minutes. That motion carries. I believe that brings us down to page two, administration request. First item is general services facilities and fleet. Is there a motion? Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Mayor. I want to make a motion to approve all of page two. Second. I have a motion. I'm sorry, did I have a second? Second. I have a motion and a second to approve all of page 2. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney, you signed up for this motion? If not... I have a question. I think I've got two people logged in on the motion. Now I've got one person logged in on the motion. Councilmember Farmer are you on this motion to approve everything on page two I am finally some expediency I'm in favor of this is a great motion please approve it thank you councilmember Fred Brown thank you Vice Mayor all these are worthwhile I guess but I noticed councilmember Farmer I believe no you're not idle hour somebody's got idle hour of improvements I don't know what district that is but they're getting a lot of money okay I think this might be premature because do the math we've spent the other three million and we haven't let anybody else comment on and individual council members should still comment on theirs so I think it's premature and I'm going to vote no thank you council member Lamb thank you vice mayor I would like to ask a question of the administration about the 1.5 for the government center. I just have to express my concern. I'm just curious. From what I read in the packet of information, you're not 100% sure that it's going to be 1.5. Is that a fair statement? That is correct. Based on the current three options that we know the probable construction cost to, that option is considered to be the best. but that said we're working on a fourth one that hopefully we will have some numbers available within next two to three weeks that's a much smaller scale involvement in terms of labor and cost and material so this primarily was put in at a time where it felt like those three options were the only ones available so that primarily more or less it would be a placeholder for the construction project for that okay and the end result would that just allow people to park on the second and third floor is that what the end result of this request is the only option that would provide full use of all the spaces on all the three floors would be the 1.7 million which is doing some serious structural rehab off the building and that's only going to be for a period of five to eight years and that time then you will have to go back and do some reinvestments into additional work at the garage so that would buy you about five or eight years of usage for the garage okay so can you explain then what what would the 1.5 or the estimated 1.5, what would it do for our garage? Well, at this point, you've got the primary three options that have been identified. One is obviously the demolition of the current structure, taking it all the way down and recreate a surface lot. That will give you about 35, 40 spaces. The next option was what would it take for us to take care of some of the more immediate structural repairs and upgrading and that's the one that you will have the structural engineers come in and identify and design the repairs as needed and get a contractor come in and and take care of those repairs that's the one that's 1.7 million 1.75 i believe the last option which they put in just for comparison sake is if we decide to demolish the current garage but go back and build a new one the same size on the same lot so those are the three options that we have the fourth one that we're looking at which we suspect would be much cheaper would be a temporary shoring of the structure at that point you will not have the use anywhere of that structure for parking now pedestrian traffic between swito building and the garment center still would be fine but at that point they're going they're designing a shoring system that's going to start on the bottom floor and walk its way up to the third floor there would not be allowed to be part any vehicles parking within that building. Okay. All right. Thank you. I will say I know that there is a lot of questions as to what this government is going to be doing with this building, and I think there are so many other studies being done right now that I hate to think about spending 1.5 when we really don't know the future, so I cannot agree with the motion for the 1.5 that portion of it. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Evans. I'd like to thank Council Member Lam for those questions. That was something that I was concerned about too. I don't have any questions for you. I was curious about going to the opportunities grants. I was curious about the inclusion of the national PTA and where that came from and why that's why we're being asked for money and why the school board's not handling that. I'm just curious where that came from. Thank you, Council Member Evans, for the question. And, Council Members, this was a recommendation, I think, when we began to explore the opportunities we may have to better engage the public school system with the new superintendent, Manny Caulk. we thought that the PTA already working with the parental engagement would be an opportunity for us to support. I think Council Member Brown, prior to his coming and joining us a few months ago here inside of Urban County Government, was involved and very much engaged in their efforts and presented this as an opportunity that may tie into what we're trying to do with the aforementioned and other partners. Is that? I'm sorry. Council Member Evans, anything else? Yeah, well, I'm curious to know, is Fayetteville County Public Schools giving any money to this? I mean, we've just always had a, we pay to use their facilities and everything else. I mean, there just seem to be some comments here and there about why we're giving money when they increase, max out their tax every year? And is this just for, I guess, building a relationship, and how much are they putting into this? I'm just curious. Vice Mayor, I believe Council Member Brown is prepared to provide a response for Council Member Adams. I've got, actually, I've got four people signed up with questions or comments. I'm going to take them in the order they're on the screen. Council Member Akers? I think Council Member Bradford can answer my question. Well, let me log in and you can answer the question, but let me stay with the order we've got. Council Member Akers on this motion? Yes, I do not want to support the motion. I'll just say that. I do think we should go through them one by one. And I think the confusion that Councilman Evans is having or that I'm having as well is on the packet we have. It says national PTA. And on the memo from the Department of Social Services, it says Fayette County PTA. So I think clearing up which of those it is may be helpful to start with. But I do understand that we also pay for use of their facilities and all that, too. But anyway, I won't go into all my questions about the garage. I'll save that for hopefully when we separate each of these items. There's a motion on the floor. You can make a motion to separate. All right, I will make a motion to amend the motion on the floor and ask that we take each of these items individually. So moved. A motion to amend to separate the items. if you wish to speak to the amendment would you give me a hand sign because we can't get the screen cleared off and rearranged but councilmember farmer in reference to the motion to separate or the amendment to separate I think if we do this that we rather than take I mean this is just my suggestions we're having a lot of suggestions today um i think we should take these from largest amount down to smallest amount but i'm going to be supportive just to get on with the program thank you thank you council member massadi i would support the motion i think we need to look at each one of these individually since we all have questions about them and some of them do include park improvements which is something we've already discussed that would be done through our first allocation to each council member so I would be in support of this motion thank you anybody wish to else boost to speak to the amendment councilmember Hensley just call the question call a question all those in favor of the amendment please say aye I'm sorry all those in favor of calling the question please say aye any opposed that motion carries now all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Please log in. That amendment passes. So now we're back to considering these items one by one. Council Member Brown, you were interested in responding to Council Member Evans' question about PTA. If you still want to do that, please do. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. The 16th District PTA, which is Fayette County's, is the support system for all the individual PTAs at the school, is a completely separate entity from Fayette County Public Schools. The program that is proposed to be being funded is called, the National PTA Family Engagement Training. So that's just the name of the training that will be administered by the 16th District PTA, which is completely separate from Fayette County Public Schools. And this program or this training came about from a grant from National PTA. I don't want to confuse everybody, but everybody's looking at me confused. So the 16th District PTA partnered with Fayette County Public Schools and applied for a grant from National PTA three years ago and received $20,000 to administer parent training in Fayette County. So that grant has ran out. And it was a very valuable training that a lot of parents were engaged and learned about ways to partner with their school system to help improve student achievement. So 16-District PTA is completely separate from Fayette County Public Schools, but the training is called National PTA Family Engagement Training. Did that answer your question? And I guess the other part of your question was Fayette County Public Schools giving money to this program. Fayette County Public Schools is a partner with that program, And part of the resources that they provided in the future that I don't think they're going to provide going forward were in-kind donations from providing copies to materials and to resources as far as trainers. So the 16th District PTA is going to be a standalone agent going forward administering this training to parents. Thank you. Council Member Evans, is that? So to be clear, the Fayette County public school system is not providing any funds to this program? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I move to approve the $1.5 million for the parking garage. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the $1.5 million for the parking garage. if you wish to speak to the motion please I'm going to take what I've got on my screen if you're not speaking to this motion then we'll come back Councilmember Farmer Councilmember Hensley Councilmember Maloney John Shee would you please come up please being a former commissioner of housing building construction and having the fire marshal under me what would happen if we don't put one dime into this garage. And one item that I failed to convey when C.M. and I'm asked about, the consultants very explicitly made it clear to us not doing anything, it is not an option. So that's what we're trying to look at, all options, and time is of the essence, trying to move forward and trying to take care of this issue being for a two-year process or an eight-year process or 40. But their recommendation was for a decision to be made quickly, funding to be made available, whatever options we decide to move forward with to do this. So theoretically, give me an answer if we don't do anything. You're taking a risk of not being able to occupy this building as well as SWITO. We're not there, but we're heading there quickly. Well, I'm going to public safety, and I know some of the people will love to see one of them things laying on my head, but some people won't. But when it comes to safety and what you just said, I would have to support this motion that we go on. And the question is what we're going to do about our future. I mean, we've had studies after studies. We keep kicking the can down. Hopefully, this study we voted on, the council voted on the other day that I didn't support, there may be something to come out of it, but I'm not holding my breath. But to me, when you've got a problem and we know it's a problem and something happens, we're talking large, and he just said it, there is a problem. So my advice to you is either we all get out of that garage and not use it at all and stay out of it, or we use the garage and put it back up to where it's safe. And to me, we're going to be here for a while. That's just my opinion. I don't see us moving very far, very soon, and very quick. So hopefully we, but I want to make sure everybody's protected. Thank you. Council Member Akers, are you on this motion? I'm going to pass. Council Member Sinnott on this motion. Council Member Lamb. Well, I guess I just, again, I have to express my questions or concerns about this because I'm curious, when was this study done that Mr. Merrard is speaking of, please? I mean, this garage has been empty, the second and third floors, that is. I think it's fair to say for 10 years. so and the you know in the first floor with all due respect it's been vacated and we've been back in it and it's been vacated several times so uh when i joined the city in 2008 the garage the upper two decks were already uh mothballed due to some structural concerns at that time it was supposed to have been a temporary thing to be done in order to and at that time they were looking into possibility of relocating the garment center so here we are 2015. just to make sure we're not taking a chance with anyone's safety we incorporate a program where annually we have a nationally known structural consulting firm that will come here on annual basis and evaluates every one of those floors even the ones that are not occupied or being used The last evaluation they did was in June. And once they had a chance to go back and analyze the data and their observations, they came back to us with a report that reflected their concern about the rate of structural deterioration compared to a couple of years ago and a year before that. So they highly recommended that, and then they came back with those three recommendations. and again they told us that not doing anything it is not going to be an option unless we want to take a very serious liability chance with that so and again as i mentioned just let's say we say this garage nobody's going to park in it but the structure is still going to deteriorate and the problem is it's structurally connected to this building as well as swaito so god forbid if something happens and the structure collapse partially, fully, what have you, it will definitely impact both of these buildings. So that's, there's no hard and fast decision in this one. Every one of these options have their pros and cons. So as you mentioned, there are so many moving targets at this point trying to bring everything into one focus. It's tough. The idea is at this point trying to eliminate the risk at the lowest cost to the taxpayers. That's pretty much the mode we're in right now. Okay. Well, this is a tough one for me because I know this building, this government center parking garage has been vacant for a long time, and I've seen it. And I know we've had trouble with this building. I mean, you know, there's lots of problems. but I guess I'm just concerned that if we're going to spend 1.5 we don't know exactly how long how much it's going to cost and I don't know I just I still have a little angst about this motion so I don't know that I'll be able to support it at this time but thank you thank you I've got councilmember Mossade and then councilmember acres thank you John she didn't I appreciate you letting us know the I can the seriousness I guess that's how you can couch it. I guess my question is, if this is such a serious issue, why are we waiting to this time right now? Why didn't we, as soon as we got this report, say, look, we need to take care of this ASAP? We had multiple discussions with the consultants after they provided the report. That was the very first question we asked them. How safe is it at this point for people who are utilizing it on the first floor, and also for the pedestrians that use it connecting between and government center. They told us at this junction, there are no immediate issues, okay, with the thing in mind that we are going to take a look at those options and try to come up with the best plan we can to take care of this issue. And the numbers range, as I mentioned. I suspect the fourth option that they're currently working on to be or the most economical option with one price to be paid is that nobody be able to park in that structure. And the shoring that's going to be installed inside the thing is going to be designed to handle what they call the dead load, which is the weight of the garage itself, as well as snow load, because they've got a cover on it. And then obviously they've got the factor of safety they incorporate. So the idea with the fourth one is to support the building on its own without any additional live load on it, and making sure that it's not causing any issue whatsoever at the garage structure nor on these other two buildings next to it. So if you're asking, is this thing a danger at this moment, the answer is no. But again, with these kind of issues, we're just trying to heighten the awareness of the potential problem with this garage. When you deal with these older buildings, this is the challenge that we have. Oh, I understand that completely. How long would it take to remediate this? All depending on which option the council and the administration decide to move forward. If you're talking about temporary shoring, we could probably quickly start once, probably as soon as council was on break to come in and and start doing the shoring work and so forth and I think the show like doing peering work something like that no just the shoring that would be probably about a 45 days repair ones will take more time because you have to put together a a bid document something that you can advertise and have qualified contractors actually come in and conduct those. The actual repairs at that point, my guesstimation is about four to six months. Demolition, probably looking at about the same timeline as the repair. Because if you demolish the structure, obviously you're going to have to take care of some of the structural impact on this building and on SWITO. So I guess in conclusion, based upon your expertise, which you are the expert here, which is the best fix for the money, for safety-wise, for expediency, so we can go forward? If you're looking at a short-term, lower cost, I would say probably the fourth option is going to be the one. As I said, we don't know at this point exactly the numbers, but based on the national cost, I suspect that would be the least expensive option. That will not cost you $1.5 million, probably not going to even cost you $1 million. That's what we've taken a closer look at. So that's your suggestion then? Yes, at this point. Because what it does, it will give you about three years. And at that point, you can always go in and repair this. If you choose, let's say, decide in five, six years, we're not going to be going anywhere. What you've done is you've stopped the structure from deteriorating further. So it's not that you put the shoring in it and, you know, that money's wasted. So in 40 seconds, so I understand correctly, your option is option number four, basically to do nothing and not let anyone. There is no do nothing, believe me. Well, not do nothing, but yours was not to have the parking there. Well, that option, the shoring option, there will not be any parking allowed at all. Okay, but that's option number four, so I understand it. And that is your recommendation? That at this point, yes. I believe that's your best buy this. Thank you. So thank you very much. Sure. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was opposed to renovating the council fifth floor, which was way less money because we are planning on moving. So, again, I understand or appreciate that you're saying it's potentially unsafe. But if you found out in June, we're just now discussing it in November, I guess my question is, can it wait until July or summer break next year when council is out? And if so, then can't it be part of the next year's budget? I don't, without knowing full costs, with dislocating parking, are we going to get the return if we sell the building or move? I don't like it either. I'm not comfortable with it. This point of return on investment is really, I'll be honest with you, is not part of the consideration. safety and security, and be able to stabilize a structure is probably the most important factor. The one next after, obviously, would be the cost associated. Sure. If I could address the first question about can it wait. We weren't willing to take the risk to wait until the next budget cycle. We wanted to go ahead and try to get this money. That's why it's on this list of very important items that we felt should be addressed at this time. As soon as we got this report back in June, we immediately ordered, if the consultant gave us any indication that anybody was in harm's way, we were going to shut it down. They didn't do that. But they said, let's figure out what these options are, and you need to make a quick decision. And that's where we're at today. So I think the question is how much money we're going to have to invest in this. We don't know that answer yet. It's either 1.75 or south of there, whatever John Sheet's recommending. but also we have to look at you know if we do move out of the building is there value in that garage as it is or is the value in tearing that garage down rebuilding or leaving it vacant so what is the best value those are all things around to work through as we come to this decision but we know today that we need to spend some money on this garage so no one else gets in harm's way in the future and one and a half shores it up and we can still park in it no no one and a half to stores it up one and a half at this point will get you the demolition and creation of a new surface lot oh the option four we highly suspect is going to be under a million i'm hoping way under a million but we don't know at this point so 1.75 that jamie mentioned that's the one that's the all that's the only option at this point that will give you the full use of the current parking structure which is coming in and doing long-term structural repair to the facility for five to eight years I'm going to make a motion to amend and allocate or recommend approval of 1 million instead of one and a half million so moved I have a motion to amend is there a second I have a second discussion on the motion again if you would signal indicate so that i don't have to go through this list again council member bledsoe thank you vice mayor just to clarify if we did a millionth of one five and you decided in the middle of it at the end could we still find five hundred or seven fifty in the spring to budget to move it to the next level i'm afraid not the decisions that's gonna be made in regard to the means by which we're going to move forward in terms of stabilization or repairs or demolition, those are going to have to be discussed ahead of time fairly quickly. And the approach in each of those is going to be different because it impacts different parts of the building. That's what I was going to suggest. Thank you. That was my thought. Sure. So that if we don't fund the full thing, we really are ruling out using that parking garage at all, if we only fund a million. Yes. Okay. At this point. Just wanted to clarify. Do you want to follow up? Yeah, just briefly. I think we even explored the option of can it be a capitalized expense and where it could be part of the bond project. The answer was yes if we were going to rebuild, tear it down and rebuild. The answer was no. I was trying to look for a solution that could get us financed through the spring so that we wouldn't have to wait and, you know, piecemeal it. But we couldn't really find one. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. to the amendment to reduce to a million Council Member Fred Brown and then Council Member Lamb. Question. John, the million five and the million seven fifty, those are two different items? That is correct. We would have to have the total of those two to get the facilities back? No, million and a half primary is just going demolishing the entire structure right put in some structural additional structural supports on this building and on swito were never being supported by the current parking garage and create a surface lot and that's what the price tag is now if you decide just to go ahead and move forward with the repairs that's when that 175 comes in because then all the concentration with the material resources and labor is going to be put into conducting primary So the million seven fifty gives us our parking spaces back. That is correct. The million five does not give us our parking spaces back. It will give you 35 maybe up to 40 spaces. So why wouldn't you recommend the million seven just to repair it? Is it? Well again we look at many many different items one of them is obviously is the future of this building. Whatever the decision is going to be, you have to look at it from different angles. You're looking at a time aspect on how long that repair would be. Well, that repair is only going to be good, keep in mind. As I mentioned, and it's noted in the report we submitted to the council, it's going to be good for five to eight years. That's the anticipated... Which one, the million five? The repair. No, the repair... The repair of a million seven would be good for five years. Five to eight years. and during that time we have to come back and do some more recapitalization. I like that option better than I do, and you're saying that we don't combine these dollars. In other words, you're asking for $1.5 million. I'm surprised, Jamie, why you all didn't ask for $1.7 million. Evidently, you're saying that that's not the best approach, although it gives us five to eight years' repairs and it gives us all the parking spaces. Well, as Sally said, we're having trouble with 1.5 here, so I'm not sure I want to ask for any more. We want to spend our money wisely. We sure do. Yeah, we sure do. And there's still some unanswered questions, I guess. And 1.5 felt like a decent number to ask for with the information we had at hand when we put this list together. Council member Brown that thank you can I just withdraw that motion please just for sake of clarity and thank you you can withdraw the motion and the seconder withdraws so now we're back to the original motion which is to allocate 1.5 council member Hensley so Jamie Thank you, Vice Mayor. If we repair it at 1.7 million, how many spaces do we get for the five to eight years out of that repair? Do you have a number? I think it was 180. Is that right, John? 180? What was the question? How many parking spaces? You will have, including your first floor, up to 200 spaces. For five to eight years? Including your handicap designated parking at each floor. So for 1.75 million, we would get 200 spaces for five to eight years. Yes. And for 1.5, we get 35 spaces. 35 to 40. And no garage. Thanks. You got it. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to the motion? I've got Council Member Farmer. don't take me off the list for the next item okay may I borrow this you absolutely thank you okay so I've never had so much fun over a garage so the million and a half would be demolition of the existing parking garage and construction of a surface lot of 30 to 35 spaces Right. So, but for 1.75, you can conduct structural repairs as noted in the evaluation report, and that yields you 190 spaces? Is that true? Am I reading this report correctly? It's not my report. Well, I mean, it's, what is it? Government Center Garage Status Report Summary. That is correct. But the summary sheet that we provided kind of give you comparison among those options, depending on if you're looking for capacity, life cycle, potential expenses, that pretty much one page will try to give you a snapshot of all your options. It's very clear. I appreciate finally reading it. It's not your problem. I didn't read it. Thank you. to me I'd bump it up to 1.75 and get the parking back but I'll go with whatever the majority rules thank you thank you anybody else council member stinett thank you since I moved on the original motion I'll amend it to be 1.2 1.725 million to get the parking spaces back for our employees So moved motion a second to amend to 1.7 to 5 Speaking to the motion councilmember Bledsoe I agree. I just want to ask one question Don't we pay right now leases for some of our parking? We will so we would be able to take that money back in theory and apply it to our own staff again It depends on who's assigned those spots You know it sounds like a good option to reopen that parking, but it comes with logistical challenges as well Well, it's hard to get 200 cars in this building at peak hours. I would agree. Thank you. We've done it before. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. That motion carries. Now we're back to the amended motion. Does anybody wish to speak further to the amended motion? I can't see if anybody signed up. Is anybody signed up to speak to the amended motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, no. That motion carries. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would just want to speak to the item that is marked social services and general services. for Ilar Park improvements. For those that were not on the council at the time, we challenged the administration to find a place to put the senior citizen center that was on property that we owned, which at that time, under the negotiations that were going on, we were going to have to pay between $500,000 and $750,000 for a place to put the senior citizen center. In the final analysis, after work done by the CAO and the commissioner, They came up with a list. The council made a decision to place the senior citizen center in Eidlauer Park. At the time we did that, we made it clear to the neighborhood that we would try to return the park to its original condition before we began this project. The main thing is we are now placing that building, which is going to be a beautiful structure. It's going to be well used by the community, but it's right in the center of what was the football field. So these are monies that are recommended by the administration, and of course I'm going to support this, and I'm going to ask Cheryl's support for it too, to return the amenities to the park that were there before we began and complete our promise to the neighborhood while making the whole thing far more useful for its new use as the senior citizen center at the front and the park at the back. So I would move approval of $650,000 to that end. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the $650,000 for the Eidlauer Park improvements. Does anybody wish to speak to this motion? I'll go down the list. Council Member Hensley, are you on this motion? No. Council Member Stinnett? Council Member Akers? Yes, sir. Thank you. I agree, and I was here and recall that conversation when we decided to put the senior citizen there, center there and that we promised to rebuild the parks. I would just make a suggestion while we're making suggestions that the three at large members pull their $266,000 allocations and fund this $650,000. Since it truly is for the benefit of the community, it's not one single district council member's project. And so that's what I suggest. And then we move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is that a motion? okay i'll make that a motion three at large council members or we allocate this 650 from the allocation prior of the at large council members so i need i'm sorry i'm going to have to ask council member lamb this is a motion to now allocate money that we previously had allocated to take the three the funds allocated to three at-large members and to allocate it to the six hundred and fifty thousand dollars for the park improvements i need to know if that motion is in order got to be a motion to reconsider it's not amazing the emotion that's on the floor right yes it was made as a motion to amend but it sounds more like a motion to reconsider so there's a so voted so it's not reconsidering until you voted on it we have not voted it on it yet we have so so then what i understand is that the amendment if it's a motion to amend councilmember farmer's motion it's in order and could you just restate the amendment basically it is to allocate 650 000 for idle hour park improvements from the previous allocation of the three at-large council members equally and there was a second Did I have a second? Second. I have a second on the motion. Did anybody wish to speak to the amendment? Council? That would be Council Member at Large, Maloney, I believe. My question is, I've got Council Member, 11 other Council Members that want money from us, and to spend all this money in one night is, I don't think it's very wise because there's a lot of important other issues out there that I think the administration made this a priority to help. And you all voted on this a few years ago that this had to be done. And now you're coming back and wanting us to take money out for something you guys voted on that should have been done. The last thing I want to do is say, I'm not going to take up the problem that you created. Now fix it. And don't be throwing the money on us when we got the money and administration's done a great job. So the last thing you do is tell us to do something with our money when you fix it. And that's why I vote no on that motion. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Councilmember Akers. Well, just a little math. If we use your all's allocation for this $650, that still frees up $650. So we don't have to come to you and ask for you to help fund projects in our district. We will have more money potentially to just fund those projects in our district. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing nobody else. All those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, no. No. Please log in. That amendment fails. and the at-lodge members will note who voted for it. Thank you. That brings us back to the original motion. Anybody else wish to speak to the original motion? Council Member Hansley, you're not on this. Council Member Stinnett, not on this item. Council Member Scotchfield. I just want to voice my support for this. I've served on Senior Services Commission since I've been on council. It's absolutely a wonderful group, and they have worked hard to make sure that this park, which we have saved so much money on because we're putting it on our property, we've had these fields that are torn up. I mean, the issues we had to go through with the football seasons, with lacrosse seasons, with this park deserves to be put back to what it was. And I think we owe it to our constituents. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing nobody else signed up to speak, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you all. Still on page one. Any further motions? Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I make a motion to approve the Social Services Opportunities Grant going in order of highest to lowest. So moved. Second. Motion and a second to approve the Social Services, $280,000. People wish to speak on the motion. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to speak in favor of this motion because I guess I'll just kind of break the agencies down by individual and what the services I feel they provide. One is God's Pantry, the first step is they provide a basic need for students. I think it's hard for a student to learn and to concentrate if they go to school hungry. Two, I'd like the Carnegie Center. They provide a very integral role in the achievement of students as far as the tutoring that they provide once they go to school and learn and come home. The second is I would like to, the National PTA, the Family Engagement Program, They equip parents with strategies and ways to partner in their child's education. And then for the Urban League, they deter the children from violence and provide gang intervention at the same time preparing the students for their next step after high school and college financial aid assistance. I think funding these programs as a whole is an intentional effort from the city to show that they're wanting to support our entire community by providing students with what they need to succeed in learning their education. And I think anything that we can do to help our new superintendent, which I've heard him speak on numerous occasions, that it's not turning around our school system and improving our school system is not just his responsibility and his problem. It's the whole city's responsibility and the whole city's problem. So, therefore, I ask you to support this opportunity grant as well. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs, you're not on this. Councilmember Stinnett on this. Councilmember Massadi. Yes, thank you, Vice Mayor. I think these are all wonderful programs. My concern is the equity, and I don't know if maybe Commissioner Ford is here. I know that every year we have a laundry list of different agencies that come to us and say, we need your help. We haven't gotten funded fully as we had thought, and every one of these are. And, you know, I have no problem with funding these. I'm just wondering about those others who did not get funded to this amount. Thank you, Councilman. The equity. Yes, ma'am. I support this in the administration. We support this. Council Member Brown, I think, wrapped it up pretty succinctly. This is an initiative, and this is us as a city taking advantage of the opportunity, taking advantage of this chance that we have to make use in a timely fashion of the fund balance. This is a new initiative. It's not, at this point, designed to be a long-term or new program that we carry on year in and year out. But we do know that we've long had disparities and inequities that impact the students in our school system. So we would like to take this opportunity, and again in a timely fashion, to move forward with agencies that we know can help us begin this important work. If this is successful, we may explore opportunities to expand this program in the future, but the agencies that are here now have a reputation that I think, and they've earned our trust working with this city government before, I think it's appropriate at this time with this fund balance request. I don't disagree with you as far as their credibility at all. I just wondered about the other agencies who might feel that it's not on equal footing, and that's my biggest concern. You know, these agencies came forward because they had a certain initiative, as you said. But there may be some other agencies who felt that they also have an initiative that's important to the community. So how can we just make sure this is equal across the board? I think going forward, agencies, we're going to, if the council endorses this, which we hope you guys will do tonight, we look forward to working with other agencies. We know that there's many activities going across the system. It's not to be a closed door at all, but this is just a start to really have that true partnership with Fayette County Public Schools, the students, and the families. So this is an initiative. It's just the beginning, and we hope to be fair and transparent going forward, Council Member Sidi. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support the motion to fund these, and specifically I've personally wired the network for God's Pantry, the new building that was out there. So I've got some personal hands-on experience and equity in this program myself. So that's all I have to say is support it. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you. I, too, have to share my concerns about the process for this new opportunity grant. We didn't know about them until fund balance requests were made. I don't feel like it was open to all social service agencies to apply. I'm not sure how these organizations were identified. And while worthy, I certainly know that God's Pantry, Carnegie Center, and Urban League are worthy organizations and are deserving of these funds. I don't question that in the least. But I am concerned about the process, and it makes me very uncomfortable given the ESR process that we had earlier this year, and these agencies were not funded, and now they are being funded. And there are other agencies who are also not funded as part of ESR that still are unfunded. So I am torn. I mean, I definitely don't want to stand in the way of feeding children or tutoring children or preventing youth violence. But I think that we need to do a better job of transparency in the future when we come up with new programs for social services. Thank you. Thank you. I believe nobody else has signed up to speak on this motion. I'll call a vote. All those in favor, please say aye and log in. all those in favor i'll try it again all those in favor please say aye i'll oppose nay that motion carries and now um given the hour council member stinnett thank you vice mayor i'll make a motion to prove the last two items on the mayor's list so moved i have a motion and a second to approve the last two items on the mayor's list which would be yeah or 30 000. would that be it yeah we're in the wrong page snow removal and i'm sorry cao's administrator the hr motion in a second to approve the last two items council member farmer and mine was just going to be a question if we approve both these that does that leave us $30,000 or so what what's our toto out in the past she's figuring that I would speak certainly to the snow removal piece for seven six thousand dollars that gets us into sidewalks no removal for the first time the council member Senate could speak to the the HR audit but I think both are things that council had brought interest in and I'm appreciative of both Thank you Councilmember Maloney I second this motion especially for the audit. I think we've been needing the audit for a long time The employees been wanting the audit so I hope that my colleagues support these last two. Thank you Anybody else? Councilmember Stinnett? Yeah, I think this puts us in a $3,500 hole actually So I'm sorry, but procedurally these are not final votes What's that? Procedurally, these are not final votes if the council wishes to ratify all of them and eliminate all the rest of the requests Council may do that, but what we have agreed to is to go through the list Okay, and see where we stand and we'll get that number, but we can do that I mean, I'd be happy to talk so can we get a balance? please Even what we've already tentatively agreed to spend Council member said it's correct. If you approve these two items, you'll be in a $3,500 deficit. Thank you. Council member Maloney. I'd like to make a motion that we have the second district papered up $3,500. I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that. Council members, the question now is, is there an appetite for going through any of the rest of the list as we had agreed to, or is there a motion? Sorry. Motion on the floor. Approve these two items. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Now, procedurally. Move to adjourn. That motion is not in order. I haven't recognized you. I'm sorry, but we need to procedurally, we need to, if we're going to proceed and consider any other items, then we need to either agree to meet after the meeting tonight, or we need to set a new meeting, or we need to agree that we're not going to consider any of the remaining items. I hear a lot of confusion. I mean, I'm just curious. we don't have any money left, so what are we going to divvy up? So I may be misunderstanding, but my understanding was that the agreement was that we were not making these as final decisions until we had gone through all the lists, so that it would be fair to the people who came further down the list. That's what, if, I have no objection. if someone wants to move to simply ratify all the council members. Thank you. I make a motion to ratify all the decisions we made today and make it a final decision. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Gibbs. We're $3,500 in the hole, though. Is that correct? We'll have to deal with the $3,500. I'm sorry? The $3,500 deficit. Yes. So where does that come from? Council Member Stinnett? We'll get that. Thank you. We'll take care of it. Perfect. So the motion on the floor is to ratify all the decisions that have been made, and this would end the fund balance discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. We're adjourned. Council members, this is- Thank you.