# General Government & Social Services Committee - May 3, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 3, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3948 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3948?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-05-03 - **Last revised**: May 3, 2016 - **Length**: 7,955 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government & Social Services Committee convened on May 3, 2016, at 1:00 PM with Lamb presiding as the committee chair. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, including one approval item and four informational presentations. The meeting featured four motions and votes, with no public comments recorded during the proceedings. The committee accomplished several key tasks, beginning with the approval of a committee summary from a previous meeting. The remaining agenda focused on informational updates across various county operations and initiatives. Committee members received updates on the Domestic Violence Prevention Board's activities and progress, reviewed proposed revisions to procurement regulations, and learned about developments regarding a compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling station project. The session concluded with a review of items currently under committee consideration. The meeting demonstrated the committee's oversight role in general government operations and social services, with members receiving briefings on both policy matters and infrastructure projects. All informational items were presented without requiring formal committee action beyond the initial approval of meeting minutes. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on May 3, 2016: • Lamb • Evans • Akers • Bledsoe • F. Brown • J. Brown • Gibbs • Henson • Moloney • Scutchfield • Stinnett • Kay All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took four votes during the May 3, 2016 meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **Approval of Meeting Summary** Scutchfield motioned to approve the March 1, 2016 General Government & Social Services Committee Summary, with Akers providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **Committee Restructuring** Scutchfield made a motion to remove Boards, Agencies & Commissions from the committee's purview, seconded by Henson. This organizational change passed with unanimous approval. **Meeting Management Transfer** The committee voted to move responsibility for the Location & Broadcasting of Council Meetings to the Committee of the Whole. Scutchfield made the motion, Evans seconded, and it passed unanimously. **Adjournment** Scutchfield motioned to adjourn the meeting, with Akers seconding the motion. The adjournment was approved unanimously. All four votes were conducted as voice votes with unanimous consent rather than formal roll call votes. No specific vote counts, individual member positions, or abstentions were recorded for any of the motions. The meeting concluded with the successful passage of all proposed items without opposition. ## Approval of Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary of their March 1, 2016 meeting as the first item on their agenda. The discussion was led by key speakers Scutchfield and Akers. The committee members examined the previously distributed summary document from the March 1, 2016 meeting to ensure accuracy and completeness of the recorded proceedings. Following their review, the committee voted to approve the summary without any noted corrections or amendments. The approval was granted, allowing the March 1, 2016 meeting summary to stand as the official record of that session's proceedings. ## Domestic Violence Prevention Board – Update The meeting included an informational presentation on the Domestic Violence Prevention Board provided by Lamb. The update covered the board's history, organizational structure, and measurable impact on the community. The presentation included statistical data demonstrating the board's effectiveness in addressing domestic violence issues. Lamb outlined the board's current initiatives and provided an overview of future planning efforts to expand prevention programs. Key aspects of the update focused on: • The historical development and evolution of the Domestic Violence Prevention Board • Current organizational structure and operational framework • Statistical analysis of the board's impact on domestic violence prevention • Future strategic plans and program expansion initiatives The agenda item was structured as an informational presentation, with Lamb serving as the primary speaker. The update provided council members with comprehensive information about the board's ongoing work and achievements in domestic violence prevention efforts. No specific concerns were raised during this informational session, and no action items or decisions resulted from the presentation. The update served to keep council members informed about the board's activities and progress in addressing domestic violence issues within the community. The presentation concluded with an overview of future plans, giving council members insight into the board's strategic direction and upcoming initiatives in domestic violence prevention programming. ## Revision of Procurement Regulations The committee reviewed proposed changes to the city's procurement regulations during agenda item 3. Lamb served as the primary speaker presenting the proposed revisions to the committee. The discussion centered on two main areas of regulatory updates: • **Threshold Amount Increases**: The proposed changes include raising the lowest threshold amount for procurement requirements, though specific dollar amounts were not detailed in the available materials. • **Language Modernization**: The revisions aim to update and modernize the existing regulatory language to reflect current procurement practices and standards. The agenda item was structured as a discussion item, allowing committee members to review the proposed changes and provide input on the regulatory updates. The presentation focused on bringing the procurement regulations in line with contemporary standards while adjusting financial thresholds to reflect current economic conditions. This was an informational session, with no formal action taken by the committee. The discussion served to familiarize committee members with the proposed regulatory changes and gather initial feedback on the revisions before any formal adoption process. The procurement regulation updates represent part of the city's ongoing efforts to maintain current and effective purchasing policies that serve both administrative efficiency and public accountability requirements. ## CNG Fueling Station The meeting included a discussion on the status and future plans for the CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) fueling station project. Moloney served as the primary speaker for this agenda item. The discussion covered the current status of the CNG fueling station initiative, with particular focus on grant application revisions that are being undertaken for the project. The conversation also addressed potential partnership considerations that could impact the development and implementation of the fueling station. This was an informational discussion item, meaning no formal action was taken during the meeting. The presentation served to update attendees on the project's progress and outline the strategic direction for moving forward with the CNG fueling infrastructure. The agenda item provided an opportunity for officials to review the current state of grant funding efforts and evaluate potential collaborative arrangements that could support the project's advancement. The discussion appears to have been part of ongoing efforts to develop alternative fuel infrastructure within the jurisdiction. No specific transcript timestamps were available for this portion of the meeting, but the item was listed as agenda item 4 in the meeting proceedings. ## Items in Committee The committee conducted a review of items currently under consideration and discussed scheduling matters for upcoming meetings. Lamb served as the primary speaker during this agenda item. This was an informational discussion focused on administrative matters related to the committee's ongoing work and future meeting coordination. The item provided an opportunity for the committee to assess their current workload and plan ahead for subsequent sessions. No specific decisions were made during this agenda item, as it served primarily as a status update and planning discussion for the committee's continued operations. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of March 1, 2016 General Government & Social Services Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove Boards, Agencies & Commissions from Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Move Location & Broadcasting of Council Meetings to the Committee of the Whole - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript The ORCHESTRA PLAYS ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to attempt to cover quite a bit of ground by speaking about the board's history, our structure, the previous impact that the board has made under Terry Farragher's leadership, and then where we hope to go in the future. So in 1985, the United Way conducted a study group that found a need for the county to coordinate their response to domestic violence better. And in 1986, LFUCG responded by passing an ordinance to create the Domestic Violence Prevention Board. And this became the city's first program focused on community organization around a specific issue. And while we weren't the first board in the state to develop, we do remain the longest standing board that's a community collaborative around domestic violence. In 1987, a part-time director was hired, and for the next 28 years, that director, Terry Farragher, valiantly and tirelessly led the work of the board on behalf of victims and their families. And then last year, when Terry retired, I was hired full-time, thanks in large part to this council, so thank you, to conduct the activities of the board. The makeup of the board is established through the ordinance, and since its beginning, it's always been composed of representatives from primary agencies that address domestic violence. The ordinance has changed a couple of times over the years to expand membership, and currently it allows for 24 ex-officio members and seven appointed members. These are the voting members of the board, but anyone can participate in the meetings and on the committees. And the board's bylaws lay out the committee structure, and it currently allows for an executive committee and three standing committees, the child abuse committee, the partner abuse committee, and the elder and vulnerable adult abuse committee, which until this year had been dormant for quite some time. And then it allows for the creation of ad hoc committees as additional needs arise. the ordinance states that the board's goal is domestic violence prevention and as such our mission is fairly straightforward our mission states that we are to promote safe and healthy individuals and families through the prevention of interpersonal and family violence so when most people think of domestic violence they think mainly of spouse abuse but the ordinance expands on the definition of domestic violence to encapsulate what we as a board also consider to fall under that definition, which includes intimate partner violence and dating violence, child abuse and neglect, abuse of vulnerable adults, sexual abuse and exploitation, human trafficking, and any other area of human abuse and exploitation that may be identified as a problem. Many people also tend to think of domestic violence as physical abuse, but the board The board addresses abuse beyond physical violence, which may include sexual abuse, the use of threats and intimidation, financial exploitation, emotional and psychological abuse, and any other tactics that perpetrators use to coerce and control their victims. our focus is on prevention and we take a broad view of that using the public health model of primary secondary and tertiary prevention meaning that we are looking at preventing violence before it occurs serving victims immediately after the violence and then looking at long-term responses to violence intervention and to help us in this broad approach, the board employs a number of strategies such as fostering collaboration and promoting awareness. I'll talk about some of these strategy implementations in a minute, but first I want to make sure it's clear that why these efforts are still needed. So according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, one in three women in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime. And among those victims, a third have experienced multiple forms of violence. And this statistic is even more staggering if you consider the frequency and severity of the violence experienced by most of these women. Additionally, one in ten men have experienced physical violence, stalking, or sexual assault by an intimate partner. And unfortunately, Kentucky exceeds the national rate of violence in each of these categories. And for the category of stalking, we actually have the highest rate in the country. And of course, in Fayette County, we are not immune from this. Last year, more than 1,500 petitions for protective orders were filed. Adult Protective Services investigated nearly as many cases of adult abuse and exploitation, and the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center received 616 calls to their crisis line from Fayette County residents. And unfortunately, it is still thought that all of these crimes, especially that of sexual assault, are still underreported. Additionally, in 2014, Child Protective Services investigated reports involving 4,121 children. and that's one year for Fayette County. And there are 24 calls to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center hotline from Fayette County, and as awareness of that issue continues to grow, we expect that number to increase. So while the numbers are stunning, national research indicates that our prevention efforts are working and the overall rate of domestic violence is slowly decreasing. And over the past 28 years, Terry was extremely effective in leading the board in prevention and intervention efforts here in Fayette County. I'm going to review some of the accomplishments during that time, but please keep in mind this is a partial list. So in terms of fostering collaboration, I think that her efforts are exhibited by the strength of the board and its membership, and a testament to how effective Terry has been in her development and constant cultivation of an effective community-wide response to domestic violence. The board has also developed smaller multidisciplinary teams such as the fatality and near fatality review team, child fatality review team, and the red flag high risk review team. The board has promoted education and awareness by publishing countless resources for victims and professionals in both English and in Spanish. The most recent was a publication, a brochure that she did on dating violence that she distributed to all Fayette County public schools, along with a discussion guide and a DVD on domestic violence for those schools so that they can more easily incorporate it into their curriculum. Terry and the board provided training to strengthen the skills and knowledge needed to best serve domestic violence victims and their families for social workers, mental health providers, law enforcement officers, school personnel, students, lawyers, medical professionals, faith leaders, and more. And within her role, Terry influenced policy at the local and state level and has been a member of several councils and commissions, including the Fayette Family Court Advisory Council, the Battered Women, Immigrant, and Refugee Task Force, the Attorney General's Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative, and the Governor's Council on Domestic Violence and Assault, just to name a few. The board has also helped change systematic practice by developing model protocols on child abuse, domestic violence, and elder abuse for law enforcement and medical professionals. They've identified gaps in service and helped fill those gaps by establishing new programs, two examples being the Representative Payee Program for Vulnerable Adults and Sunflower Kids Supervised Visitation Center. And the board helped increase access to services for victims, and one significant example is when the board made sure that the nighttime clerks were adequately trained to have victims fill out protective orders and make sure that there were procedures in place to serve those with limited English proficiency. And those efforts helped ensure that Fayette County was in compliance with the state mandate that there be 24-hour access to those services. Terry and the board developed resources. Terry researched and wrote grants that brought in more than $3.5 million in federal funds into our community. And those grant funds helped fund the projects that she helped start. and she's done research and has published many articles on domestic violence, some in local publications and others in national reviews. And the board has continuously cultivated dialogue by engaging community members on issues related to victims and their safety by hosting quarterly meetings, committee meetings, roundtable discussions, candidates, forums, and more. And as stated before, there are numerous other accomplishments and the board has represented LFUCG numerous times in ways that should make this body very proud. So, needless to say, I have shoes the size of cruise ships to fill. Moving forward, I intend to continue with expanding upon these efforts in the new full-time capacity. In terms of fostering collaborative solutions, I intend for the board to expand our network and create new partnerships, particularly with medical professionals. When you look at the reports that have been done on fatality review, you'll see that most of those victims were not connected with an advocate. And while that's a great testament to the good work our advocates are doing, it also indicates that we need to create more entry points into the service system. and hospitals seem the most obvious place to do that, not just in ER rooms, but also in physicians and pediatric offices. We can also do more on promoting awareness and education, so I'm hoping to have the opportunity to develop a social media presence for the board in an effort to reach those that we're otherwise not reaching. In the meantime, we are accessing traditional media. Just a couple weeks ago, the Child Abuse Committee sent out a press release on child safety tips for the summer. And while you may think that these are fairly well known, that people understand them already, tragedies like the one that occurred in Louisville last week where the child died because they were left in a hot car is just one example of how we need to continue to be vigilant about safety, especially when it comes to children. And the Board is carrying on with strengthening skills and knowledge through training. So far I've made presentations on the dynamics of domestic violence as well as on how such dynamics affect children. And as Program Coordinator, I'm collaborating with Greenhouse 17 to develop a domestic violence training for the Community Action Staff. And through our Partner Abuse Committee, we've established a subcommittee to develop trainings for various professional groups, beginning with first responders. And the Child Abuse Committee is planning a training to help improve cooperation and understanding between police, child protective services, and the school system. Beyond training community action staff, I hope the board will collaborate with them and Greenhouse 17 to develop a workforce support group for survivors, which is vital to keeping women and children safe, keeping them housed, and keeping them from being dependent on their abuser. I also intend to develop a workplace safety campaign for local businesses to make sure their policies include ways to keep victims and their coworkers safe at work. And through the Partner Abuse Committee and with the help and leadership of Commissioner Ford, we are pursuing a pilot program to develop a crisis fund for victims. So, for example, sometimes a victim will need her locks changed in order to remain safe in her house and to keep the perpetrator out. that there are currently no such resources in Fayette County when the victim can't afford to do that herself because of the financial abuse that either occurred during the relationship or continues to occur after. So this crisis fund will allow us to provide such assistance for lock changes and any other safety needs that may arise. And I hope the board will continue its research and efforts in collaboration with Dr. T.K. Logan She's currently doing a project on safety planning, which is the number one thing women can do to keep themselves safe in such situations. And later this summer, the board will host a conversation or roundtable event on the diversity of the board itself and exploring ways we can be more intentional about those we're serving and reaching out to. So those are a few things we are working toward, and I look forward to identifying more needs and developing more programs and projects that will enhance victim safety. I thank you for your time and attention, and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you so much for this presentation. If I remember correctly, we had a large discussion there in the last budget cycle regarding this position and everything, so it was nice to hear an update of how the transition has moved forward. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for being here. Welcome to our city government, and thank you for the presentation. I always like to look at the root cause. So, you know, we do a lot to prevent. And so has there been any type of studies done to determine why is Kentucky so high on? Are we raising a bunch of bullies? Right. I don't know. So I haven't seen any studies that specifically address the rate of those crimes in Kentucky. But I do know that future work with men and boys is going to be particularly important. And the underlying issue really is about a sense of entitlement and perpetrators feeling so entitled to certain rights that they feel that they legitimately have a right to abuse other people in order to maintain those rights. But why that's happening more in Kentucky than in other states, I don't currently know. I was just thinking it would be worth looking into. Absolutely. And, you know, I mean, it's not an easy answer, I'm sure, but I was just curious. But thank you for your work, and it all sounds great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you. I was reading our police report this evening this morning, and I thought, oh, goodness, it just breaks your heart. And so I'm so glad you are where you are and doing what you do. I was just more curious on some of the definitions. Sure. If you could just help explain a little bit more. Yeah. Does stalking, I would assume that include online bullying or online stalking, or is it physical? I think at the time of this, for the purposes of this project, it was physical. It would include unwanted communication through phone calls, but not necessarily harassing communication through the Internet. So do you all do anything on social media bullying or curious? Right. A couple of our partners, particularly Kids First, is really involved in Internet safety for children. And at the conference that we're doing for schools and DCBS and the police, we're going to be talking about sexual predators online. but we don't currently have our own social media campaign to spread the word about that but we do what we can in terms of face-to-face education about that. Yeah, I would assume that's a growing area just from my friends and their kids' experiences of a market that's just growing faster than we are in terms of our response and prevention. And we're really lucky to have this attorney general that's so in tune with that issue, and the Kentucky State Police have just made a few arrests around that issue. So we do have a good basis for a response here in Kentucky. That's great. And then lastly, so when you say vulnerable adults, are you speaking kind of generally about special needs kind of individuals, or is it? Yes. So we have vulnerable adults, typically elderly, and then also those with special needs, particularly those sorts of needs that make them more vulnerable to abuse. Statistics say that people with special needs are three times more likely to be abused than those who don't have special needs. And so we absolutely want to be looking at the extent of resources in our community to serve those victims and be very intentional about reaching out to them. I'm glad. I know there's been several conversations just in circles that I'm in, in the faith community, about housing for special needs long term and trying to help that area. So I'm glad you're moving to that direction. Well, and that's so good to know. Housing and domestic violence are so overlapped. overlapped. Domestic violence is the third cause of homelessness for women. So housing for special needs as well as protection from abuse are tied hand in hand. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. I'm so sorry. This is all so necessary. But I did want to mention, this is not something you directly control, but I did take a training with the Green Dot program. I was there with you. Greenhouse 17, and I noticed my trainer, Meredith Swin, was out there. I just wanted to mention to my colleagues, this is a great awareness program. I learned so much, and to let people out in the public know that the Greenhouse 17 is just one aspect of the work that you're doing, but I thought I knew a lot, and I've learned a lot. So thank you, Meredith, and thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. All right. Is there any further questions or comments? No? Council Member Maloney. Just looking at the average of what's following up with Council Member Henson said, stalking rape and we're hiring each one. In Fayette County, did you put an average of weed below? I mean, there's no such thing that's in good shape. I just want to know what we compare to a city our size on these kind of issues. Unfortunately, statistics aren't broken down in that way by counting. Okay, thank you. All right, any further discussion? No? Well, we appreciate this update, And we hope that you'll let us know if there's any changes or anything. We welcome you to have further updates as necessary. And thank you and Commissioner Ford for doing such a good job and moving forward with this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Our next presentation is regarding the revision of the procurement regulations. Mr. Todd Slayton, our director of central purchasing, requested this revision, and I will recognize Mr. Slayton. Thank you, Council Member Lamb, for allowing me to present today. This is not a lengthy presentation. I want to go through where we've been, what changes we'd like to make, and then in comparison to some of our peers, how the city of Lexington compares. The procurement regulations that we have in place right now were originally created in 1983, so that's 33 years ago. They have actually served us quite well, and they are consistent with the model procurement code, and we have been able to manage our purchases of up to $150, $175 million a year using these regulations from 1983. They were revised in 2003, and that's where we modified the lowest dollar amount threshold. I think we raised it from $500 to $1,000 in 2003, and we also tweaked the professional services piece in 2003. Then again in 2012, we repealed the CAO policy number one, which kind of conflicted with the regulations. We had two documents out there that didn't really say the same thing. So we combined those into one professional services piece and incorporated that into the procurement regulations. And that also mirrors the model procurement code. That's where we added the scoring sheets for RFP selection committees, among other things. The $20,000 threshold was originally $25,000 in the CAO policy, and we reduced that to $20,000 to be consistent with the competitive bid requirement. The current dollar amount thresholds are $1,000 and below. A division may make the best value decision. They can use their pro card for those purchases. The $1,000 to $9,999 range is where divisions must submit three quotes with their requisition, and then we go with the low bidder. The $10,000 to $19,999 range is where formal quotation is required that's managed by the Division of Purchasing. And then $20,000 and above is where the competitive bids or the RFPs are issued, and that's where the bulk of the purchasing work comes into play. As far as the revised changes, what we would like to propose is that we change the lowest threshold amount. We want to modernize the language, and again, the current regulations have served us well, but it is a little dated. There's no reference to cooperative purchasing contracts that we sometimes use, although it's not disallowed. This would give us an opportunity to make that clear. There are electronic bid distribution and notification systems that we use that, again, it's not specified in the regulations. We want to clarify that. There was some language concerning if someone submits a mistake in their bid that we needed to revise, which we actually did that in our bid documents a few years ago. I know Council Member Kaye will remember that battle that we had up here. then vendors must, we're also adding some language to state that vendors must be in good standing with regard to fees and taxes. Again, we have that language in our bid document, but we want to have that specified in our procurement regulations. And then the other thing we'd like to do is combine the procurement of professional services, put all of this in one document that governs all of the procurement practices. As far as the dollar amount threshold, we are proposing that we would raise that lowest limit from $1,000 to $2,500. This would allow divisions to, again, make the best value decision. They would also be allowed to use their ProCard for those purchases. Right now, the ProCard can only be used for a purchase up to $1,000, and this would expand the use of that program. This year we spent about $4 million with the ProCard, and that gives us about $57,000, $58,000 in rebate from the bank. So I think based on my very basic analysis, we could probably easily double the ProCard spend by changing this dollar amount. And, of course, it would give us a larger rebate. The $2,500 to $9,999 range is going to be the area where they would submit three quotes with the requisition, and then there's no change to the formal quote or competitive bid thresholds. That will still stay at $20,000. As far as what our peers are doing, we did some research, and the $1,000 limit that we have for the lowest threshold is really kind of behind the times. UK has a $5,000 threshold. UofL has a $2,500 threshold. Louisville Metro is at $2,500. And then the state of Kentucky is $3,000 in some agencies and $5,000 in other agencies. And in comparison to folks outside of the state, Kentucky, in general, is fairly conservative on the dollar amount thresholds. So if you go to Cincinnati or Nashville, probably Indianapolis, they're all probably that lowest dollar amount threshold starts at about $5,000. And that was it in a nutshell. There's some documentation that's attached to your packet that is the actual revision to the regulations. And we provided you with the working copy so you can see where the changes were made. But most of it is, again, that lowest dollar amount threshold. And then there's some house cleaning that we did on some of the language to bring it up to speed. I think we had references to submitting your bid via telegraph that we thought we should probably take out. But if anybody has any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Slayton. Are there questions? Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Todd. I'm just confused about one thing. I'm looking at page 28 and 30. It looks like 28 is the old regulation. Oh, okay. 30 is the new one. And on the new one, I don't see a range between $10,000 and $19,000 plus. Is that all going to be anything? That will be in there if you're not seeing it. That one just stays. That one stays the same. Okay, so you just chose not to repeat it. Right. Okay, that takes care of my question. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Todd. With the ProCard, by increasing that, is there policies related that each division have to follow? There is. We have a pretty extensive ProCard manual and ProCard guidelines, and there won't be any change to that process. There's still an approval process for a ProCard purchase. There are, it's very, it's actually very restrictive with regards to the types of merchants that you can make a purchase from. There's something called an MCC code. And, you know, we don't allow MCC codes for, it's all, you can only buy from like government related things. So it's very, it's pretty restrictive. The benefit of using the ProCard in addition that I didn't mention is when we create a purchase order, there's about 16 steps, and I think there's seven people involved, both at the divisional level and then at purchasing, it goes up to the commissioner. When you do a pro card transaction, I think there's six steps and there's four people involved. You still have that workflow through the division and then at our level, but it just condenses the whole process. And I did some very basic math calculation and I figured purchase order probably costs us about 100 to 150 dollars in dollars based on the man hours and a pro card transaction somewhere around 30 bucks. So there's some savings in efficiency as well. And also internal audit recommended that. There you go. Thanks Bill. So can we do random audits? We do and there's a actually we have an audit program in place where we audit receipts and audit purchases. And I suspect right now we're basing that on the number of transactions, so we'll probably increase the amount of audits if the number of transactions increases, which I'm sure that it will. Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I don't see a problem with what you want. My question is, have you been getting a lot of complaints from people needing to go over $1,000 up to $2,500? I think that's the main reason you're doing this is to go from $1,025. It is. And, you know, really, I mean, let's face it, $1,000 doesn't buy what it used to buy. So it's – and we can – there's a lot more. You can purchase things off the Internet that we weren't able to do, you know, years ago when these limits were established. And you can actually expand your reach, and it's easier to get better deals when you have that option, I think, is what that opens us up to. So my next question, do we need a motion to approve this board? Well, I don't, I mean, this isn't set by ordinance or resolution, is it? But also, I have Vice Mayor Kay wanted to speak, too. So let's let Vice Mayor speak, and then we'll address that. We'll get Dave Barber to. Thank you, Chair. Todd, I had, I was leafing through the changes, and essentially what you're telling us is that the ones you've highlighted are the important ones. There's a fair amount of cleanup language in here. I noticed one of them had to do with the whole unit pricing, which created a controversy before. But I think what you're telling us is that really all the rest of those changes are really about cleaning up so that they reflect current breast practices. Correct. You're correct. Okay. That's mainly what I wanted to say. And I was going to ask about whether it needs a motion or not. And they would be, the regulations would be adopted by ordinance, so I think you would report out at a council meeting and then make a motion to adopt the regulations. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. All righty. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So we need a resolution. Well, we will. We'll recognize Council Member James Brown, and then we'll come back to a motion. That way everybody gets to talk before motions get on the floor. Okay. Thank you, Chair. What activates the rebates from the banks? It is there's a percentage of your spend, and so if you spend a million dollars, you get .0, whatever it is. If you spend $2 million, it actually increases as you spend more, which is kind of unusual. But it's not tied to the type of purchase. It's strictly tied to the dollar amount spent in an annual year. Yeah, they do it January to January. All right, thank you. Thank you. Actually, I have a couple of questions, too. By the way, that rebate goes back into general fund, just so you know. Oh, that's very good. Very good point. Very good point, yes. Yes. Doesn't go back to the division that actually received it. Right. Okay. Of the University of Kentucky, Louisville, and Louisville Metro and State of Kentucky, all of those lowest thresholds, do they all have procurement cards as well? UK does, and UofL does. The City of Louisville does not. They have a very limited ProCard program. And then the state, again, it depends on the agency. Some have them, some don't. Our ProCard program, we have about, I want to say, 175 to 200 ProCard holders, and nearly every division has at least one ProCard holder now. Okay. I think about my own personal expenditures, and if I'm going to make a $2,500 purchase on a credit card, that really makes me nervous, but that's just me personally. So my other comments actually had to do with the marked-up copy, and I was going to reference on page 40, section 4.2. I don't know if you have that with you. I do not, but I've practically memorized them. Well, I'm sure. This is about the public notice. and the way that the language you all were striking out, subsection A about the publishing and in advance of the date set for opening bids as required by law versus saying not less than seven days, no more than 21 days. I'm wondering if you could actually put the reference of the state statute in there so that you don't have to go hunting for what the law is. We could do that. We kind of limited it to what's required by law just to give us that flexibility if that changes. But we can reference the state statute if we need to. I mean, and I realize that there could be other laws that could be imposed, but we know for a fact that the state statute does reference the publishing on that. Seven-day requirement, right. And then on page 46, it is Section 4.11, and specifically the new Section H. I'm just wondering if you can explain. It's talking about add the catch-all language for any reason LFUCG wants in reference to the rights to reserve or reject any and all bids. and just that language was just kind of intriguing to me as to how it is. Well, it is. I mean, you want to have the intent is to have the regulations provide us with a basic structure, but I think a lot of times, and I've seen other cities and municipalities where the regulations are extremely detailed and you have no flexibility whatsoever. We intended for, and this is how the original regulations were, intent to meet the basics of the model procurement code, which we have not adopted but we closely follow, yet give us flexibility to make educated decisions on how to handle bids and if we want to reject a bid, that type of thing. She just got the drafting error. We wanted to put the, I believe. That is a working copy section. That's not in there. That language, Section H, is what it is? Uh-huh. Yeah, that's where we were working on it. Oh, okay. Well, that makes me feel some better. That's good. I'm glad. Thank you, Mr. Barley, for that clarification. And I, one other, so in that case, I will point this out on page 49, subsection C. I'm thinking that there might be a word that was unintendedly left out there just for reference purposes. The required must be obtained prior to transmittal. I'm thinking the required what? So anyway, these are things that I've got written down and I can share with you later. So back to the question from Mr. Barbary in the law department. Is it a resolution that would approve this regulation, or is it, what, do we have something on the book? It's a piece of legislation. I would have to go back and verify whether you did it by resolution or ordinance last time, but you all have, in fact, adopted these as a council in the past, so our recommendation would be any changes you make, you also do by legislation as well. So I think if you were willing to make a motion to just do appropriate legislation, move it forward, that would be fine for today. Okay, all righty. So I will, if there are any further discussions or questions among the council members? No? So it sounds to me like that my colleagues were interested in entertaining a motion. Don't everybody jump at once. He can't make the motion. Ask him for a motion. Yeah. I move that we go ahead and support this recommendation from the staff to increase from $1,000 to $2,500. All right. So the motion is made by Council Member Maloney, seconded by Council Member Bledsoe, to go ahead and prepare whether it's an ordinance or resolution to approve the regulations as revised. Is there any discussion on the motion? Vice Mayor? Okay. Yes, just to be clear, there's language in what we have in front of us that needs to be changed. So how do we, we don't want to approve what's here because it's got language in it that's inappropriate. I don't know that there's a whole lot of material changes that need to be done. I don't know when you, we can, what we can do is, I think you're safe in approving it today. What we can do is we can get you all a clean copy well in advance of when this gets reported out, which I think is two weeks from now. So you'll have it to make sure that we didn't miss anything. Thank you, Chair. All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Councilman? Councilman? I just wanted to echo what the Vice Mayor said. As long as we get these changes and I'm in support of moving this forward. And the motion that was stated by Councilmember Maloney only referenced the dollar amount and not the entire document, right? Right. No difference in the entire document. So. I mean, it's fine if y'all want to put the entire document. I'm fine with it. I just know that's the only difference. So we could do a friendly amendment to make his motion to include all revisions within the procurement document regulations. Okay. So Council Member Henson made a friendly motion to, and Council Member Maloney, you accept that? he's not listening yes that chair's in the way I can't see and Council Member Bledsoe do you accept that as well alright thank you I think we're all clear as mud so any further discussion there being no further discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed alright thank you Thank you, Mr. Slayton. Thanks. Thanks. All right. The next one item is the CNG fueling station. And Council Member Maloney, you referred this to committee. Do you want to introduce the presenter? Have Dow come up to give you an update on why we put it in there and where we are right now. Thank you. Sure. In mid-March, I sent an email to Council Members updating them on where we were at that time. In mid-March, we had issued an RFP for design-build-operate of a public CNG fueling facility. However, in the third week of February, we learned from the Transportation Cabinet that since we're a public entity, we didn't have to have our CNG fueling station open to the public, as was originally proposed in our CMAQ application. We've since revised the CMAQ application. The state has approved the application, and they are going to be sending us a memorandum of agreement for us to execute. Then we'll be able to receive the grant funds and build the C&G fueling station on waste management's property. Thank you. You're welcome. Are there any questions? I'm glad we finally got it cleared. I think that's what we originally wrote the grant for, and I'm glad that you've straightened it out, and we're back to where we are. Appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. What about the partnership with LexTran? Was that something that we were still considering, or was that something that wasn't doable with the grant? No, LexTran moved on with their own design-build-operate RFP, and I don't really know what's happened. I heard that they selected a vendor and then have since canceled the contracts. I really don't know what the current status of their CNG fueling facility is, but we're not considering partnering with them at this point. Okay. I thought another part of or another challenge with the waste management location was the configuration of where they were proposing to build the station. Is that still? Well, so now since it doesn't have to be open to the public, it doesn't matter. So it's going to be used for waste management C&G vehicles, as well as I believe John Sheet has purchased a couple of C&G pickup trucks, but they're LFUCG-owned vehicles. So as long as it's city vehicles going back there in waste management's property, that's not an issue. I think the issue was when we were going to have random C&G vehicles coming back on our property, that was undesirable. Okay. Now, wasn't it a benefit to make it open to the public? I thought part of the grant was to encourage use of CNG fuel. Is that? No, I think you're right. I think that's a good point. The intent of the grant is to reduce emissions. Would it be an added benefit if we fueled other vehicles in Fayette County and thereby reduce the emissions? Yes, but I think it's in our best interest to move forward with the facility on our own property. By the end of fiscal year 17, waste management will have 30 CNG waste trucks. And then John Sheet has plans to purchase additional pickup trucks. And so I think our CNG fleet will be expanding over time. And so this CNG station will just serve our needs. Okay. Yeah, and I don't want to seem like I'll just keep asking more questions, But I think Council Member Maloney also brought to our attention the concern about maybe making that station or placing it close to the interstate to make it accessible to some of the bigger trucks. Is that, I mean, is that? Well, so that would be if it's open to the public. So we're not moving forward with a station that's going to be open to the public at this point. Okay. Well, I've got one more question. Okay. The new 30 vehicles that Waste Management is going to have, are they going to also be connected with the slow-filled? Are they going to have their own slow-filled station and just use the CNG pump as an emergency measure? They are solely CNG vehicles, but they will be slow-filled. What we proposed in the CMAQ application was slow-filled pumps and one fast-filled pump. So presumably the one fast fill pump could be for fleets, fleet services, two pickup trucks that they currently have, and any additional fleet expansion that they do with pickup trucks or small trucks within LFUCG. But all of the waste spots will be slow fill. The waste management spots, if that makes sense. Yeah, it does. Okay. All right. Thank you. Councilman Bray, Chris. Thank you, Chair. So, Dowell, do we have a location for the new station? So it will be basically where the current facility is today. So we don't own the infrastructure that we're currently using to fuel waste management C&G vehicles, so we're leasing it. And so this would be a replacement basically for that equipment, and then we would own our C&G equipment forever. forever. So there would be no benefit to having it open to the public at this time? Well, I mean, I think, you know, to Council Member Brown's point, I think the benefit of having it open to the public initially was to think that because we have this public access CNG station, people are going to transition their vehicles to CNG and potentially fuel it at this station. You know, would that encourage people to make the switch from gas or diesel to CNG. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. But the goal overall is emissions reductions. Okay, thank you. Thanks. Are there any more comments? No? All right. Thank you for your update. I appreciate it. And before we move forward to the items on the referred list, I wanted to bring to everybody's attention on June 9th, no, June 7th, our next scheduled council committee is we have a budget of the whole committee meeting that starts at 9 that morning, and it's likely that that could go into and extend over into our June meeting. So I guess one thing I was going to ask our council administrator, if it looks like that we're going to be needing that 1 o'clock to 3 o'clock time for that committee of the whole, how do we handle that? In the past, if you want to keep your committee meeting as scheduled, go ahead and prepare a packet. You can start late. We did that last year with one of the committees. We started around 2 o'clock and got through as much of the agenda as we could. if you go through your time, let's say it goes until 3 o'clock, you can schedule a special meeting of your committee and use that same agenda. Okay, so we should just go ahead and move forward as if we're going to actually make sure that we have one, and then we'll just go from there. Okay, all right. Thank you, Council Administrator. Right, right. So at this time, I guess we'll go through the referred items list and see what we need, what would possibly be ready for June. Then Council Member Scutchfield on the Parks Foundation. Okay, continue, continuing. Okie dokie. And review of ethics ordinance, Council Member Evans. She just escaped. I think we were maybe looking for July on that item, I believe. So, unless she tells different when she comes back in here. Extended social, the ESR process, Council Member Bledsoe. July. Okay, already. All right. We'll see if we can possibly have the ethics ordinance and the ESR at the same. I think we can juggle those two. So, the Veterans Affairs, we're still pending a review from Council Member Hensley. security park cameras in the parks. Council Member Fred Brown? We're still gathering information on that. Just leave it like it is. And just to point out, we only have four meetings left in this year. So if we do have our June, that's fine. If not, then we're down to three. So maybe we could have the security cameras. Well, you said they're still in review. So, all right, Council, Rules and Procedures, Vice Mayor Kay? I think that's ready to go. So if we could put that on for June, that'd be great. For June? If not, it would have to wait until September, so, because July is going to be full at this point, so. Chair, point of order. we've got one more meeting in june and then we will meet in july then it will be september before we do okay that's correct uh-huh yes um council member uh evans the ethics ordinance do you think it'll be ready by july we hope yes i believe it will be okay already okay thanks all right and uh council member maloney do you want to remove the cng fueling station or do you want to keep it in there. Go ahead and remove it. All right. There's a motion to remove it and seconded by Council Member Fred Brown. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. The autonomous cars, again, we are waiting to get information from Council Member Hensley. Council Member James Brown, the minority recruitment and retention. I want to say, Chair, I want to say July, but it looks like it's piling up in July. So, yeah, we can say September. That'll give me plenty of time. All righty. So we can shoot for September on that one. The update on the Domestic Violence Prevention Board today, I will entertain a motion to remove that from the committee. Council Member Akers made a motion. Second by Council Member James Brown to remove this item, Domestic Violence Prevention Board. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, we were going to have an update on the substance abuse and violence intervention in June. And Commissioner Ford, when would that be ready for the savvy? Council Member Lange, we can be ready in June, but we can come any time convenient to the committee. Okay. Maybe if we could just have that as prepared for June, and then that one would be flexible. So, all righty. Thank you. And then as far as the revision of procurement regulations, I believe we took care of that today. I'll entertain a motion to remove it. I need to remove it. Second. All right. This is a motion to remove and seconded. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. All right. And then the follow-up items, Bluegrass International Center, we might have to move that to September even maybe for an update on it. And then what about the EMS service fees? Council Member Henson, Commissioner Ford. We have. Missed the, skipped the Congress here. Oh, I don't have that. Okay, I did, didn't I? Not intentionally, by any means. The Bluegrass Area Development District, I believe we're waiting on an update, and that's kind of pending, so that might even end up being in September, possibly. So now back to the EMS service fees. I guess I would ask Commissioner Ford if, do we have any data? At this point, very little as it pertains to EMS, but we are actually working on the program that the funding for the medical transport will come from. So September or early fall would be great for us. Sounds good. Thank you. All right. Is there any other discussion on any other matters? There being none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Motion, second. All in favor, say aye. Thanks.