# Budget COW-REv. Update, Late Items, CM & link Recommendations - May 26, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 26, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3969 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3969?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-05-26 - **Last revised**: May 26, 2016 - **Length**: 24,611 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 Budget Committee of the Whole convened on May 26, 2016, at 2:00 PM in the Council Chambers, with the Vice Mayor presiding. This meeting served as a continuation of the May 24, 2016 Budget Committee of the Whole session, focusing on budget deliberations and recommendations for the upcoming fiscal year. The committee addressed four agenda items, all informational in nature, including the Mayor's late items, individual council member recommendations, and non-financial recommendations. During the session, the committee took 10 votes on various budget-related matters, though no public comments were heard. The meeting represented a key step in the city's annual budget process, allowing council members to present their individual priorities and recommendations before finalizing the budget proposal. ## Attendance **Present:** • Council Member Stinnett • Council Member Henson • Council Member Fred Brown • Council Member James Brown • Council Member Lamb • Council Member Evans • Council Member Mossotti • Council Member Maloney • Council Member Scutchfield • Council Member Bledsoe **Absent:** • Council Member Akers • Council Member Hensley **Late:** None Ten council members were present for the May 26, 2016 meeting, with two members absent. ## Votes and Decisions The council took action on multiple budget-related items and personnel matters during the meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. **Budget Late Items Approvals** The council approved late items for several funds through voice votes: • General fund late items - motioned by Council Member Stinnett, passed • Urban service fund late items - passed • Sanitary sewer fund late items - passed • Sanitary construction fund late items - passed • Water quality management fund late items - passed • Landfill fund late items - passed **Personnel Additions** Council Member Fred Brown motioned for two new staff positions, both of which passed by voice vote: • Funding for one administrative specialist for the fire training center • Funding for one additional records custodian for the police department **Employee Compensation** Council Member Maloney motioned to approve a 1% raise for employees starting in January. This motion passed by roll call vote. **New Position Creation** Council Member James Brown motioned to create an EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) Coordinator position. This motion passed by roll call vote. All motions presented during the meeting were approved. The specific vote counts and individual council member positions on the roll call votes were not recorded in the available data. The meeting appeared to focus primarily on budget amendments and staffing adjustments, with all proposed items receiving council approval. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several budget appropriations totaling $444,829 for personnel additions and compensation adjustments. The council considered funding for one administrative specialist position at the fire training center, requiring an appropriation of $25,346. Additionally, they reviewed funding for one additional records custodian position for the police department, with an associated cost of $29,483. A significant portion of the budget discussion centered on employee compensation, with a proposed 1% raise for employees starting in January. This salary adjustment would require an appropriation of $307,000. The meeting also addressed the creation of a new EEO Coordinator position, which would require $83,000 in funding. All four financial items represented appropriations for personnel-related expenses, including new positions and salary adjustments across multiple city departments including fire services and police operations. ## Contested Items The May 26, 2016 meeting featured two significant areas of disagreement among board members. **1% Employee Raise Proposal** The board engaged in a split vote regarding a proposed 1% salary increase for employees, scheduled to take effect in January. The debate centered on concerns about the budgetary impact of the raise and questions about the timing of its implementation. Board members expressed differing views on whether the organization could afford the additional expense and whether January was the appropriate start date for the increase. The discussion highlighted tensions between supporting employee compensation and maintaining fiscal responsibility. **EEO Coordinator Position Creation** The proposal to establish a new Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Coordinator position generated heated discussion among board members. The debate encompassed multiple aspects of the proposed role, including fundamental questions about whether such a position was necessary for the organization. Board members also disagreed on where the position should be placed within the organizational structure and how it would be funded. The discussion reflected broader disagreements about the organization's approach to equal employment opportunity compliance and resource allocation priorities. Both contested items demonstrated the board's ongoing challenges in balancing operational needs with budgetary constraints, as well as differing perspectives on organizational priorities and staffing requirements. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting summary.* ## Mayor's Late Items [timestamp: 00:00] The Vice Mayor presented the Mayor's Late Items during this discussion session focused on general fund matters. The agenda item covered personnel changes and corrections that required the council's attention. The discussion was informational in nature, with the Vice Mayor serving as the primary speaker to outline the late items that had been submitted for consideration. These items specifically related to general fund operations, including necessary personnel adjustments and administrative corrections that had arisen since the original agenda was prepared. The session provided an opportunity for the council to review these late additions to ensure proper handling of personnel matters and budgetary corrections within the general fund framework. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it served as an informational briefing to keep council members apprised of the late items requiring their awareness. The outcome was purely informational, allowing the council to be informed of these late submissions without requiring immediate decision-making or voting on the presented items. ## Continuation of May 24, 2016 Budget COW [timestamp: 00:00] The council resumed budget discussions from their May 24, 2016 Committee of the Whole meeting, focusing on two key areas: public safety and environmental quality. Council Member Fred Brown and Council Member Farmer served as the primary speakers during this continuation session. The discussion built upon previous budget deliberations, examining specific allocations and priorities within the public safety and environmental quality departments. The meeting served as an informational session, allowing council members to review and discuss budget items that required additional consideration from the previous meeting. This continuation format enabled the council to dedicate focused time to these important budget categories without the time constraints that may have limited discussion during the original May 24 session. The agenda item was structured as a discussion item, providing council members the opportunity to ask questions, seek clarification on budget details, and ensure thorough review of the proposed allocations for public safety and environmental quality initiatives. No formal action was taken during this continuation, as the item was designated for informational purposes. The discussion allowed for comprehensive review of budget components that impact community safety services and environmental programs within the municipality's fiscal planning. ## Individual Council Member Recommendations [timestamp: 00:00] Council members presented their individual budget recommendations during this discussion item at the May 26, 2016 meeting. The session featured presentations from two key speakers who shared their budget priorities and suggestions for council consideration. Council Member Fred Brown and Council Member James Brown each offered their respective recommendations for the upcoming budget cycle. This agenda item served as an informational discussion, allowing council members to formally present their individual perspectives on budget priorities and spending recommendations. The format provided an opportunity for each member to outline their specific proposals and rationale for various budget allocations. The discussion was structured to gather input from council members before moving forward with budget deliberations, ensuring that individual member priorities were documented and considered as part of the broader budget development process. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it was designated for informational purposes only. The recommendations presented will likely be incorporated into future budget discussions and decision-making processes. ## Non-Financial Recommendations The council discussed non-financial recommendations for the fiscal year during agenda item 4. The Vice Mayor served as the key speaker for this informational discussion [timestamp: 00:00]. This agenda item focused on recommendations that do not involve direct financial expenditures but may impact city operations and policy direction for the upcoming fiscal year. The discussion was structured as an informational session rather than requiring formal action by the council. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, meaning no formal votes or decisions were required. The discussion served to present recommendations to council members for their consideration and awareness as part of the broader fiscal year planning process. *Note: Limited transcript details were available for this agenda item. The summary reflects the structured information provided about the discussion format and participants.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve general fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve urban service fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve sanitary sewer fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve sanitary construction fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve water quality management fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve landfill fund late items - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve funding for one administrative specialist for fire training center - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve funding for one additional records custodian for police - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve 1% raise for employees starting January - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Create EEO Coordinator position --- ## Full transcript What a great first-class facility right here. Absolutely. Finally, finally. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome. It's a continuation of the Budget Committee of the Whole. It's May 26th. We have a quorum present. The first item on the agenda is the Mayor's late item. And again, unless there's objection, we'll take these one at a time, vote them up or down. People should have received, should have a packet in front of them. It's dated today. Melissa, you're going to present. Thank you. You can skip ahead a couple pages to the fourth. There we go. Go back one, please. Okay. These are the late items for the general fund. Just for your reference, these are things that were made an error in the budget, were omissions or any council action that you all have taken since the mayor's budget was proposed. The first one, the number one here, is changes in personnel due to council-enacted ordinances or resolutions. So these are items that you all had already previously approved through Council Action. The second one is some personnel corrections. When we pulled the personnel data, we had some people that were being pulled twice, so we had them double counted in the budget. So that is giving you all some additional dollars there. And then the third item, we had a typo in a cloud services account where we had typed in an incorrect number. So the impact of these changes for the general fund is $196,290 to the positive for you all. And I can go into any more detail on these if you wish. Thank you. So just to be clear, do we need to approve these changes, or are these? Yes, I'm seeing heads nodding in back of you. What we've done in the past is you all have approved by fund all of the changes. Got it. So you would say we approve the general fund laid items, and we approve it by fund. That's what we've done the past couple years. Thank you. But we can do it however you want, but they do need to be approved. I think we do that the same way. So that's the general services district fund. Are there questions or comments? Council Member Stinnett. Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion to approve. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing only music. We'll take a... All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. The urban service fund, we had a duplication of items in both facilities budget and waste management's budget, so this is just removing that. And it increases the fund balance in the urban service fund by $450,000. Thank you. Is there a motion? Move approval. Second. Motion and a second to approve. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. Moving to the sanitary sewer fund. These are related to council actions that you all had already previously approved. It will decrease the fund balance by $51,000 in the sanitary sewer fund. I have a motion and a second to approve discussion on the motion. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Melissa. So since the position is for law and government communications, is that right? Yes, these are the two positions that you all had approved through ordinances. But it's in the sanitary sewer fund, so I'm assuming. This is where there was an attorney position that there was an abolish and create ordinance on that you all had approved. And so that person was a split funded individual. And then these are the four new Lex call positions to help with customer service for LexServe. And so you're going to see these spread throughout several of the funds as we go through the laid out list. Gotcha. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. We're moving to the sanitary sewer construction fund. This, there's no impact here. This is just changing the account, the revenue account, to reflect where it should be reflected for the KIA loans. So there's no impact on this one. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. We're moving on to the Water Quality Management Fund. This is the same two issues that I just answered Councilmember Henson's question on, and it's a decrease in the Water Quality Management Fund of $27,480. Thank you. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Moving on to the landfill fund. This is the same four Lex call positions, and it is a decrease in fund balance of $18,130. I don't have that in my packet. Is it just my packet that doesn't have it? Anybody else not have that? It's in the old one. Page six to six. Okay, so it's not in the new packet. It's in the old packet on page 66. The late item packet. I'm sorry. The late item packet. The former late items packet. On page six. The last thing. Okay. People can either find that. Motion to approve. Second. Motion and second. Discussion on the motion? None. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That is all the late items. Thank you. Thank you. That allows us to move to the continuation of the links report outs, The next link report out would be a public safety link. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to thank my esteemed committee members, Vice Mayor Kay and Council Member Masati, and the three of us who looked at the public safety link. There were several in attendance from the public safety ranks. I want to thank Commissioner Bastion and his staff. Commissioner Bill O'Meara and his staff was there, and CAO office and the staff there. I want to thank those for being in attendance. We had good attendance and good discussion. What we've got there is about, it looks like, one, two, three, seven divisions related to public safety. Division of Police, Community Corrections, Office of the Public Safety Commissioner, Division of Fire and Emergency Services, Division of Enhanced 911, Division of Emergency Management, Animal Care and Control. So we met with all these divisions and or had some communication with them. So going forward, let's take the first one. And what I'll do is the ones that really have no requests, I'll go through those first, and then I've got a couple of the divisions that will have requests. And if you would just tell us what pages you're on. Yeah. And you just tell us what page you're on if you're going to skip around. Well, if I'm in the – we've got a late budget committee. the whole, I just got it today, has got just several few pages. So it's page nine there. Or if you go to the original amount, it'll be page 59, I think. Okay, thank you. We're being updated. Yeah, if you're not following the sequence that's in the packet, just let us know. Okay. Say you're going to jump around. Just so much to move those along that we didn't have any requests. And all of our items that we did have requests were unanimous of the three of us. Okay, the first one is the ABC Administrator on page 9 of the latest packet. And there was a total budget requested was $17,680. There was no changes there. and we accepted the mayor's proposed budget on that one. So are we moving on each one of these? Yes, sir. So moved. Second. Motion to second. Approve as submitted. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Second item of division is page 10, and that would be the public safety corrections. They add a total of, which is a very large amount, $36,178,490. And they had a lot of items there, a lot of capital items there, but everything went through the mayor's proposed budget. So we accepted that and accepted that without any change. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve as submitted. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Page 11 of the new packet, and it would be page 51 of the old packet, and that would be enhanced 911 slash emergency management. That total budget request approved by the mayor's budget was $8,329,250. they had some capital projects in there but there was no additional request on the financial end there is a non-financial recommendation and this will I think address separately later on I think we've actually been trying to we've been doing them as we've been going so if you want to include that as the recommendation we'll just do that Okay, the motion is to accept the mayor's proposed budget on this particular one for financial, and then the non-financial recommendation was a presentation to counsel from the Division of Emergency Management for them to present for an alert system for the blind and hearing impaired. So this was just a request that when we discussed it, we'd like for them to come before the council of the whole, or not of the whole, but work session. So I make that motion. So move. I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. We'll go to page 14, which is the Public Safety Commissioner's budget. And this particular amount is, I mean, a large amount, but it has personnel in it. That's mainly where the personnel is in that particular budget. Public Safety Commissioners on page 14 is $68,927,720. There was no requests. Also, these totals include animal control, so that division is included in the Public Safety Commissioners amount. And there was no additional items, so I move to accept the Mayor's proposed budget amount. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Okay. I think that gets us back to fire and emergency services on page 12. And the total budget on that was for all funds. of personnel operating in capital was $75,576,650. They had several items, and I want to read these off. I think they're important. On capital projects, the mayor's proposed budget included $70,800 for extrication equipment, $13,510 for two thermal imaging cameras, $5,200,000 is in bonding for Station 24. I think everybody's aware of that. $300,000 is in a bonding package for warehouse at Station 10. $450,000 is in the bonding package for the Jordan building. And then we have $75,000 capital improvement for station security slash access system. And then we have $312,000 in the bond package for light fleet vehicles. After discussion there, there was a recommendation that we provide funding for one administrative specialist for the fire training center at 50%. That's $25,346 at 50%. This would be funded out of the general fund based on the budget amendment when appropriate for fiscal year 17. So it doesn't have anything to do with fiscal year 16, but it is a recurring item. And we were unanimous, the three of us, about this particular item. And if anybody has questions on that, we'll get some discussion from the commissioner. This is in fire and EMS. This is the first item. And it's listed there as $25,346. Why don't you just complete the recommendation, and then we'll take a motion and then have discussion. You don't want to move on each one of them, on each one of the items? Only if someone has a question. Okay, you're in charge. Next item is a replacement of an EC unit and upfit for $385,000. from the fiscal year 16 reallocation funds is what our first request was, or include in the bond package. If it is included in the bond package, it would result in another $45,134 as an increase. So this $385,000 could come from two sources, but the reason on that, and we discussed it because we do have some capital items that are in there, but this was one of the items in the fleet. He's got a fleet plan for fire and emergency equipment, and they were one short in keeping up with their management plan that they had. So we felt like that if we were going to squeeze anything out, this might be the year to do it. Plus, we felt like the committee did that this certainly would be keeping with their equipment plan, and this would be a good time to keep it current. So I move on those two items. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the proposal? Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On the ambulance, the additional unit, how many were in the reallocation for this year, for this budget, from FY16? I will. I have to. One, apparently? So there's already one. And has it been ordered yet? Can you all come to the mic so we can. Come to the mic and give us that update. If you don't mind, thank you, Chief. That's where we took our expertise from. Yes, the second reading of the reallocation budget amendment is tonight. Right. We plan to order that tomorrow upon passage. And that's a replacement? The first one, and it's replaced. Both of these are replacement trucks, yes, sir. And that's for EC3, and then if we approve this one, which one will this one replace? EC5, which is over Roanoke, Cardinal Valley, Station 14. Okay, and is the plan, and I don't remember it, you probably laid it out, Is it two new ambulances a year going forward until we catch up, or how did you map that out? The two a year works very well. At this point, we have 11 on duty. Right. So two a year gives us about a five- to six-year life on an ambulance, which is about all we get out of them in a front-line role. And the ones we had last year, we've already received those and put them online? Yes, yes. There are two new ones that have been on duty for two or three months now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Vice Mayor. I was just going to ask Council Member Fred Brown if he would specify because basically the motion is to take it from the FY16 reallocation or include it. So can you specify which? I think our first choice on that was to take it out of the surplus funds since we felt comfortable that there would be enough there for these particular items and this in public safety We really didn't ask for a whole lot. I know this is probably the biggest number asked for by anybody in the links, but it felt like it was real important. So we feel like there's money there pretty easy, and I'd rather do that than bond it because bonding puts another $45,000 into the budget for next year. So do you just want to clarify that your motion is for one instead of both? Yes. Okay. Yeah, that's all right with my committee members. So let's make that as, yes, take off the oar for the moment. Yeah. And I see the commissioner may have a comment, sir. Yes, if I can make a clarification, are you asking for an FY16 reallocation now or in October when we usually do a fund balance discussion? Where do we need to stipulate the, the, the. Well, I would think it would be the fund balance in October, then, would be probably the best on that. Yeah. Is that okay? Okay. Yeah. Oh, yeah, I don't want to. So unless there's objections for the clarification, that would be included in the fund balance discussion in October. Council Member Bledsoe. I just have a quick question. Is there any benefit to ordering at the same time as opposed to ordering separately? No, ma'am. We have a price contract with the vendor we've used. It's good for another year, so it doesn't matter. Probably by one or five, it's going to be that number. Fantastic. That's what I wanted to ask. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. I'll take the vote. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Okay. Thank you, Council Members. The only other item, well, there's actually three items on the police, public safety link under police. And we had three items there. They're not very large, but they have to do with personnel. I think one of them is personnel, yes. First one is to provide funding for one additional records custodian, which is 50% funded at $29,483, funded out of the general fund via budget amendment when appropriate during fiscal year 17. The other one was to restore funding for two items. One is $10,000. That's equipment. I'm looking for the detail under that. I don't think it reads here, the $10,000. Can you help me on that, Commissioner? And also I have $11,050. I've probably got it in my detail, but I don't see it on here. And then there's also the restore funding for equipment. Both of these are for equipment that is under $5,000, but they accumulated to these amounts. Is that correct? Yeah. If you remember during the link when police presented, we had done the line-by-line cuts of the budget when we were doing our review. And we reduced a couple of their accounts based on historical spend, not realizing that they had done BAs to move money out of those accounts and that they would be short about $21,000. So that's what these two items are. Good explanation, because that's what sold us as a committee was the fact that they had had these in the past and had used the monies out of other funds. So we're just restoring, basically. And it's $10,000 for one and $11,000 for the other one. And you want me to move on both of those items? Sir. So moved. Motion and a second. Discussion, Council Member Lamb. Thanks. Melissa, can you tell me what the account 75801, I don't, what's that for? It's equipment under $5,000. It is equipment under $5,000? Okay, all right, thanks, thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a question about funding, this is for, it might be the commissioner, about DARE officers in the police department. and from my understanding, they've started that program back. How is that program funded for the DARE officers? It's funded through the general fund, just with normal personnel expenditures for the people that are conducting classes and so forth. In the past, it had been reduced when we went through the downturn in the economy, and we didn't have as many resources to work with. And now that we're getting back into being able to replace some folks and grow a bit, we have the resources now to get back into that program and conduct it with the school system. Okay. In the past, was there any federal or state funding for that program, or has it all been local? You know, I think when it initially began, it began with some grant funding. I'm not aware of the latter years having funding associated with it. Maybe the chief may know about that. We have applied for grant funding here recently to start that program up for supplies and training. It is a certification course that only can be taught in Kentucky, so we can only do 10 officers at a time. We put in for some of the JAG grant and other funding to come in and help us supplement getting that program started. So that will help us buy supplies, go back into the schools, and do it. Okay, so where you just restarted this program, you've already built into this budget money to pay the officers that you're going to reintroduce. Well, the officers, we're trying to be efficient with it. So what we're doing is talking to the schools on our heaviest days, which are Thursdays. And so instead of having just community service officers, we want all the officers in the sectors that are interested, we're training them. So on our heavy days, they can go in and teach in the school for four hours. So we're not using lapsed resources. and so we're not paying overtime for them or anything else. We're actually using resources that we have at hand. Okay. Is that once a week, once a month? I think it's eight or nine weeks now. We just did the first one at Booker T, and that was with our community services officers who were originally trained as DARE officers, and I think it was an eight or nine, I can't remember, week class that they go in and teach. Okay. All right. I have another question about PAL. Now, it might be off base. It might not be the best place to ask it. But the PAL officers, do you just fund them through personnel as well? We have hired PAL officers. We have, but we also have grants. But most of the grants go for equipment and for some of the issues dealing with PAL, whether it's the awards, whether it's taking them on trips, or whether it's some of the games and coaching that we have. But we have a lot of volunteers that work with us, And then we have coordinated POW officers in the police department. Okay. Yeah, I may get with you at a later time to get in more detail about it, but I just wanted to ask that question. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thanks. I just have one quick question. The mayor's proposed budget included one assistant records custodian, so the link changes or recommendation is the additional records. will both of those be dealing with the body camera yes and so we don't really know what we don't know yet but by the time it if we got hit with a flood then it would be tough to come back to council and ask that and get that approved so if you all look at that and approve it and then if we need it we can use it if not then we don't need to fill it and so it would be there and budgeted so we could get half a year i think we'll initially start off with the half of the year going in and then when people come to realization with body cameras and what they're looking at, open records requests, we want to be prepared for that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yes, I just wanted to follow up on Council Member James Brown on the DARE program. Yes, sir. We used to have a real good program on that, and I know that we've talked and you're trying to build that back up, and I would encourage that, and I would encourage other Council members, If you're not familiar with the DARE program, it is a great program, and it goes in every one of our districts. So I'm very supportive of it, and even though I don't know, maybe later on when you get to the point, maybe we could have a brief presentation as to where we're at and what else you might need. Yes, sir. For you all in your districts and in our sectors, instead of having one unit do it all, we have started a Safe Pathways program. So the sector officers are actually meeting the kids coming to school and leaving, and then they will also be trained in DARE. So you will have in your districts, in your sectors with the commander that's working for you, DARE officers that are going to be adopting those schools themselves and going in and teaching. So instead of just community services doing it, all the sectors will adopt the schools within their sector and then be responsible for teaching DARE and then having other programs within the school systems. I see nobody else. No further discussion. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That concludes Link's report for public safety. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That allows us to move to the next item on the agenda, which would be the Environmental Quality and Public Works. Link, Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We met on the 26th of May. Our link included the newest and oldest members of the council, Council Member Maloney, Council Member Hensley, and myself in the middle. And we took up, go on to the next page there. We took up environmental services, the commissioner's office, streets and roads, traffic engineering, waste management, and water quality. There's just a couple of recommendations we're going to make potentially differently than what the mayor had proposed. The first one was in the division of environmental services. If you'll roll down just one more, please. So, and we talked about this a little bit in our meeting, our committee meeting on Tuesday. We have an opportunity to continue to do a better job in trying to take care of nuisance vegetation all around the city and the county. and when the budget was put together, it was put together $25,000 shy of what the division had asked for. And I know this contacts, I would think, pretty much every council district because we all end up having people saying, who came along and cut down that horrible? I mean, sometimes when they cut things down, it doesn't look good. But it's important to keep it cut down and keep it cut back. And as you can tell from Susan Pluger's comments, at least at our meeting, we're trying to be more vigilant and be more prepared. And she's working on a very long-term time frame. And in doing that, it's just a matter of taking care of the things that we have before us each year. In this instance, we felt like it was very important to help her, help each one of us. as this says here, program offers beneficial services to both the urban and rural areas of the community to cut back this vegetation. So on behalf of the link, I would move that we allocate $25,000 to the program from unassigned fund balance for fiscal year 2017 from the mayor's proposed budget. So moved. Okay. You want to take these one at a time rather than... That's fine. There's only three of them anyway, I think. Okay. That's the only one here of many. I know there's one more on the next page. Motion and a second on the change from the mayor's proposed budget. Any discussion? Council Member Lamb. Thanks. Is that enough? Well, I think you reach a programmatic capacity. I think if there's one thing I have learned, and I think we've all seen from working with Susan Bluger and her staff, they know what their capabilities are. I think if she felt like she could spend more money consistently, she would ask for it. She's here, I'm sure. There she is. Come forward if you'd like to. I mean, I referred to her the other day as a force multiplier because she gets the job done. If you want to make a pitch for more money, this could be your special time. Let me just explain. In the mayor's proposed budget, it's $160,000. This would take it to $185,000. Okay. So this includes county road cutbacks and nuisance cutbacks in the urban areas, roads such like Old Todd's, Old Mount Tabor. Any road that has old in front of it, you can guarantee we've got issues because it's leftovers, it's culverts, it's guardrails, it's railroad tracks, different areas like that. Right. Well, I just want to make sure because I know that everything you've done in our district has been phenomenal, and I just don't want to short your resources at any point. So thank you. Thank you. Good. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Scotchfield. Susan, come on back up. I figured until you got sat down. My question is pretty much the same as Council Member Lamb, but how many areas do you think with that 25 you'll be able to do in addition? Well, we have to cut all of them just for public safety. This is really a public safety line item. It gives us the opportunity to do more cuts in certain locations where we need to do. Sometimes we have to do five times a year, not just two. It also gives us an opportunity to go into some of those areas in urban short segments, such as Squires Road, Old Todd's, and actually dig out the honeysuckle during the winter. So this would be an additional operation. What we want to do is eliminate some of these areas completely. So next year we could just do it with in-house staff. We wouldn't have to contract out constant cutting. So that's what we're trying to do is continue to better manage these areas so that over the long term we can actually reduce our maintenance costs. That's a beautiful answer, by the way. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Susan, come back. Just stay close because we're on for a couple minutes. I think you probably already answered my question, but you're eradicating bush honeysuckle permanently, right? Where we can. Yeah. We can dig it out of the ground, yes. Yeah. in the right of way. And you can spray it if necessary. Yes. To keep it from growing back. It still comes back a lot of times with that. And we have the large stumps. There's some logistical issues with that. It's much better to pull it out. Yeah, I agree. But there are certain locations where we cannot do that. It has to be vertically hedge trimmed for multiple reasons. So those have to be maintained. But there's certain locations where it could be removed if we put a contractor on that job. Okay. Thank you for your work. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. No one else signed up? I'll call the motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. The next page is a budgetary recommendation having to do with some of the Corridors' work. The Corridors' Commission had asked for additional funding. And when it was appropriated, it came in $50,000 less than requested. There are several new projects that have been identified that could be completed in 2017, So we, as a link, discussed that. And do you want to highlight those areas in terms of we were trying to say where we would go next to do things in terms of those beautification efforts? Yes. This change would go from a mayor's proposed budget of $125,000 to $175,000. Corridor's commission has identified the Parris-Pike interchange at I-75 as a potential project. The Athens-Boonesboro at I-75 is a project area, and also Medians within Richmond Road corridor. And there are some other smaller areas as well, Alumni Drive and Clay's Mill from other work as well. But those were the two largest areas. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massotti. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Susan, just a quick question, and I asked Council Member Farmer. These are in-house personnel. most people that you're using or not? This would be primarily the design, landscape architect being contracted out, and it would depend, but most likely it would be a contracted installation. So the corridors is contracted, the honeysuckle removal is in-house or contracted out as well? Coming back to the previous item? The previous item, yes, I'm sorry. The previous item is unrelated to Corridor's commission. Right, but I'm just saying as far as personnel. Who doesn't? coming from your shop or who's doing that? Both of these items are operating, so that would be contracting. Okay, that's what I'm interested in. All right, thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up. So this is a motion to allocate $50,000 to the program from unassigned fund balance in the 2017 Mayor's proposed budget, so moved. Second. Motion to second. Further discussion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. On the next page of the PowerPoint, you'll see that we have also challenged her to develop a marketing and sponsorship and outreach plan for financing opportunities of new projects, which just follows up on the wins that we had around the city in relation to being ready for the Breeders' Cup last fall and to identify other community and corporate sponsors. So I think the money that we bring to it, others will help us with, too. With those two changes, I would then move to approve the environmental services budget as amended. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. All right, next we move on to, in essence, the commissioner's office. You know, we don't really, there are no budgetary numbers, changes here, but we support the effort of General Services and our group in long-term facilities planning to evaluate the consolidation options and cost alternatives for our facilities and equipment, and funds are budgeted for that. Richard, did you want to speak to that at all? Was that... And you may not. You're good with that. All right, then we have a motion to approve the commissioner office of budget as was submitted by the mayor. I have a motion. Is there a... Second. I have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Thank you. Next is the Division of Streets and Roads, which, after some really great discussion in looking at their organizational chart and kind of understanding some of their needs, and this was a suggestion of Council Member Maloney's that was a really good one, to abolish a vacant position of public service work as a senior and create a position of public service supervisor. So this is budget neutral. This created position will increase capacity to manage seasonal project demands as well as expected the use of the detention center trustees towards job skill training. So this is budget neutral, but you can see what it does there on the bottom line, and I would so move that change at this time. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on this motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And then I would move to approve the Streets and Roads budget as amended just now. So moved. Motion and a second to approve as amended. No discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. All right. In traffic engineering, lots of words. We had a lot of conversation about streetlights and KU and some things we would like to see different. And you'll notice that a lot of these recommendations are on the last page of today's packet. But we're interested in our relationship with KU as it relates to outage reporting, especially to get those lights reported or noticed and then replaced. and just surveys of how well they do that because I think, I don't know, it seems like I see more lights out and I keep reporting them, and I know they get fixed, but I think others then go out. So we want to help them along in that situation. Then they're a little bit reticent to move forward on LED lights, which subtly to the process when we bought the Granville lights in the downtown frame, we've now begun to change those over to LED lights ourselves, which I think is a great change for us. It's certainly, I think, a more ambient light. It costs less to operate, and we're just kind of wanting them, again, to look forward to other places we could use those in the city, because I think when you begin to travel to other jurisdictions, you can tell when you drive on streets that have LED lights on them. They're bright in a different way, and it's just better on the environment all the way around. That's something else we're going to work with in our relationship with Kentucky Utilities. So then on page 10 of this packet, we come to our first budgetary recommendation, which was to increase funding by $150,000 for upgrades of the traffic signals along Manowar Boulevard. As it says here, add mainline detection from Trent around to Parker's Mill. Originally, in the budget, they had asked for, I think, like $320,000. and not funded. Enhanced corridor signal systems at $320,000. We kind of said, can you come back to us with something less than $320,000 that's quantifiable that we can talk to the council about and that they would know what it meant and what the outcome would be. So that is the subject of page 10, which is to allocate $150,000 to the program from unassigned fund balance to change that. I don't know. i want i want one of you all to sell this a little bit commissioner or or jeff if you would director what would change that we would be able to talk about in the community for this 150 000 dollars well actually it may be fairly subtle uh the notice the the changes that you'll notice but what this would do is would allow us to add detection on the main lines like right now we're on what's called semi-actuated control on many of the intersections along Manowar. And so the inner loop and the outer loop are assumed to be fully occupied by vehicles, and so the signal basically times out, and then it goes back to the side streets and the left-hand turns. This would allow the signal to know what the demands are on the main line as well. So it would make it smarter and make those signals smarter and more efficient? Yes, make them more responsive, mainly in the off-peak times. Between Trent Boulevard all the way around to Parker's Mill Road? Yes. On Manowar? Anything else there? I think it sounds good. All right, I would so move to allocate $150,000 to traffic engineering from the fund balance for upgrading of the traffic signals along Manowar Boulevard. So moved. Motion and second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. If you oppose, the motion carries. The signals are already timed. This would make them more efficient in detecting when turning movements are being asked for. Right now, the signal can't tell that. This would give more detection so you could tell when it's called for. Thank you for that vote. I appreciate it very much. On the non-budgetary items, would you be open to a motion to move those as a body to the environmental quality? Absolutely. Committee, would you help entertain that motion? I would so move to move the non-budgetary things to committee. Thank you. So moved. I have a motion in a second to take the non-budgetary items and move them into the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee. Discussion on the motion? Good idea. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Then I think I would just make a motion then to approve the Division of Traffic Engineering Budget. Motion to approve as amended. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Division of Waste Management. Here, we're still interested in what we can do to outsource the MRF if we get right down to it. Because I think there's still great... I mean, I can speak to this, but Richard Maloney can speak to it with a great passion. But I think that there's still an opportunity for us to do better on behalf of the citizenry by us not managing this on a day-to-day basis and potentially letting someone else do it, thus this type of request, which is something that I think we've talked about, but we haven't done it. And I think it would be important for us to have a look at this and see where it could get us to in terms of what would be better off and what would be better used and how much more could go on out there. Richard, do you want to speak to this one at all? Council member? Do you want to speak to this at all? No, thank you. All right, you have that for information. And then I would just say we want to move to approve the waste management budget. So moved. Second. Motion and second to approve. Discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. And for all the money involved, we support the recommendations of the mayor's proposed budget and division of water quality, and we would approve that budget. As submitted. So moved. Second. Motion and a second to approve as submitted. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, and I appreciate the referral of the recommendations to the committee, and we'll look forward to continuing that work. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown? Vice Mayor, I have a clarification that I need from budgeting, I guess. maybe Melissa can tell us on how we're funding those two positions one in fire and one in police to get them in the fiscal year 17 budget I don't know that we made that distinction on how to get those in there what we would ask if you're adding new positions would be to use the same policy that we use when we put the mayor's proposed budget together and that would be to fund the new positions at 50% funding which is the amounts that are on the spreadsheet that are in the packet But do we need to make that as part of the actual budget that we're going to be voting on? Yes, that would be nice if you could make it as part of the budget that you're voting on. See, I don't think we need that clarification. So those two items there should be part of the budget that we're going to vote on. All the other items were dependent on fund balance and surplus and things. Right. So do I need to make a motion? If I could clarify also the police, because that's recurring dollars, We would not want you to use fund balance in the fall for those as well. But please not. Okay. No, just the two positions, one police and one fire. Yeah, the two positions, yeah. One police and one fire position. Yes. So I'd make a motion to have that as an amendment to our budget package, the mayor's proposed budget. Okay. So can you restate the whole? I'm not sure what the exact language is. Council Member Stenner. I think what he's trying to do is reduce our budgeted FY17 ending fund balance so that that number that the mayor proposed will be lower if we approve these two positions, the same way we just did with Council Member Farmer's link. So it's just reducing it from our ending budgeted fund balance that we're planning on having, not the current one, and not the one in October. Right, and not doing it by VA during the year. All right. That's all he's trying to do. I have a motion and a second. People signed up on this motion or something else? Council Member Lamb. Okay. On this motion, then, where does that leave our fund balance or the remaining balance on the budget, then? I don't know if anybody's keeping up with it. Council Member Lamb, right now the total running is $708,480. And that's what we have left out of the... That's what the total of the list that have been approved between Tuesday and today. Okay, and Mr. Merrill, will you help me remember how much we had left? Was it one point? Two point? I just don't remember the number at this point in the venture. Thank you. With the approval of the late items, you started out with $1,123,890. Okay. And you've now allocated $700 and... $780. Right now it's approved at... Hold on. $708,480. that leaves a balance of $415,410. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you so much. Thanks. If there are additional questions, would you sign in and I'll wreck it. Council Member Masotti. Commissioner. I'm sorry. Commissioner, we seem to have an additional question. Council Member Moussotti. So where are we? What's the total as far as with these, that's allocation, what you just said. What's our bottom line here? And we're having a consultation right now to answer that question. After you're finished consulting. Okay. I'd appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And the answer is? So we're reconciled. You're currently at $415,410, and that is assuming that you start with a beginning balance of $1.5, and you end with an ending balance of $1.5 budgeted. So in order to be in balance, you still have $415,410 to discuss and decide what to allocate. Is that clear? Clear as well. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Okay. I am going to ask Councilmember Fred Brown if he would consider holding his motion until we end up going through the remainder of the items, so that way we can still have the ability to discuss other items under the remainder of our agenda for today. because if we vote now on what you're proposing, then that boxes us down to this number 415. If I think I'm speaking correctly, maybe somebody will correct me if I'm not. If we don't vote on what you've proposed right now, then we have more options with our council member recommendations. And so just suggestions. Well, the only two numbers there represented there was $25,346 and then $29,483 were the only two numbers that were in there to make it a budget, actually amend the fund balance. That was the only two numbers. Wasn't it the $150,000 from Council Member Farmer as well? I'm not sure about that. I should look at these people. Is that included in the total we've been given? So the balance remains $415,000 and change? So it's $200,000 that we're going ahead and committing to before we even get to our council member recommendations. Just a point. So now, if I might. Just a second. I need a clarification. the $415,000 does or does not include those two motions to allocate? That is the balance remaining after everything that had been approved Tuesday and today are added to the list. So there's nothing pending on that $415,000. Does that help you, Council Member Lamb? Council Member Stinnett, you want to explain further? No. So we've already approved the two positions, but the problem is we didn't specify where to get the money. That's the only difference in what Fred did and what everybody else has been doing Tuesday and today. So it's the same effect. We've already approved the positions. And we have to go back through this again and re-approve everything all at once. So after we get through the council member recommendations, if we're below that $400, then we've got to make a decision on some things. Or find more money somewhere. so now but it wouldn't exclude any other council member at this point okay i believe we're all clear that allows us to move to the individual council member recommendations and again we'll proceed as we have been proceeding we'll take an up or down vote the first one is a recommendation of council member acres i believe everybody received an email from Councilmember Akers who regretted that she could not be here today. So, I guess, is there anybody who wishes to speak to this request that she's making? If not... Yes, let me speak to maybe the general part of it. The council member recommendations, and I think this is what we looked at last year because we had an enormous amount of dollars last year that we were going to spend, and I think it's been tapered down to some extent. But my thoughts on this was that we were going to address all of these with our fund balance in October, if there is any extra fund balance. you're not talking about putting it in the current budget. Yes, we are. These are requests for the FY17 budget, and that's what they were last year. Now, many of those items got deferred to the fund balance in our discussion. I'm just trying to get a clarification. We can do that again, but right now these are proposed to go into the FY17 budget. So each one of us that are addressing this will designate whether we want it in the 17 budget or want to defer it. No, sir. No, sir. My understanding is that these are requests for fiscal year 17. If you have made one of these requests and you would like to withdraw it for fiscal year 17 and hold it for the fund balance discussion, that would be an appropriate motion. So it doesn't leave us outside of the items that we actually would like to have. We've still got another chance in October. Is that my understanding? Yes. Council Member Akers would be able to bring her one item back up. Yes. I didn't want to shut her out completely. And when we schedule a fund balance, anybody who has additional requests for the fund balance can bring those forward. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. So we're at Council Member Akers. Is there a motion on her request? I have a motion. Is there a second? I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Henson. Well, before we got the motion, I agree that lakes are very important to our community, but I'm just not convinced that this is the way to go about it. that maybe we, instead of taking on an employee for LFUCG, we could give additional funding to LexArts or something? Huh? Oh. So this would, I guess, then I need clarification. so my understanding is that the request is to to although it says create a part-time public art coordinator position it would be funding to lex arts additional funding to lex arts so that they could create that position okay that's my understanding and we don't have council makers here but i believe if you read through that's pretty much what she's requesting further discussion council member stennett thank you vice mayor i guess from budgeting how much do we give what is this year's lex arts contribution from lfcg currently hold on she's she's coming Hold on a second. I want to say it's $489, but let me double check that. Maybe Council Member Bledsoe, was that flat from last year? It's an increase. They got $489,050. They have requested $600. And what did they get last year? 450, so it was an increase of 39,050, a 9% increase. And what was that 9% for, did they say? I was curious. I mean, I don't know. Kevin Adkins can answer that one. I'm going to have you some help. Kevin, can you answer that one? Part of the request this year was for a marketing position. We decided to team with them halfway on that, and we picked up half of it. and they also requested some additional funding for janitorial services, those type of things, since the building usage has increased. What we did not fund, and the difference in the request, is some building improvements at the facility, which we thought Jomsheed should take a look at, since it's our facility run through here. So are we doing janitorial for them? We're doing part of it. It was about $10,000. Okay. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Further discussion, Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Would it be appropriate to maybe table this issue until Council Member Akers is present to maybe elaborate more on his position in the conversation and the justification for the amount? Instead of taking action on it, maybe table it and tell? I think there's an administrative question of whether if we table it, when we would have to take action and how we can do that separate from these meetings. There's a timetable, so I don't know. Council Member Maloney. I think she just sent an email to all of us with the writing why she wants us to vote for it and all that, so she couldn't make it today, which I think she did send an email for us and answer the questions that she's concerned about, too. So I think this is pretty good information, Senator. So I believe that a motion to postpone would be in order. I just want to get clarification if this is postponed, if it would be able to be acted on in a timely fashion to include it in the FY17 budget process. Council Member Brown. Well, I guess that answers my question because if we vote on it and take action on it or don't, then it can be brought up and maybe discussed at the next fund balance conversation or meeting. So I have my question answered. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Henson? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just curious. What link covered LexArts? That would be Council Member Bledsoe. Have a question. That's why you had all the answers, right? Because she's smart. is this something that was looked at during the leak and you did not recommend it okay thank you further discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor please say aye all opposed why don't we get this since it looks like it's a no vote can we ask you to sign in please that motion fails the next item council member lamb Yes, this is a very small request, very small request for curb reconstruction. And it would be putting $15,000 into engineering's budget to basically move a turn lane back and to fix a curb that's been driven on and in and water pools there. So I hope you all will support this, and I so move. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Council Member Hanson. Could this not be, I mean, in the past I've had items like this covered in engineering's budget, So I was just curious why it wouldn't be. Well, that is a very good question because it's not a project on their list. So I tried to do this with my surplus and then ended up being short some money on that. So it's a very small amount of money. Right. Just small, small, small. It's tiny, tiny, tiny. Did anyone put into committee how projects are chosen? No, I didn't think that. We'll put that in non-budget. Thank you. Thank you, Vice. Council Member Lamb. Yes. I'm going to speak to this motion. You may be able to contact other council members who have some funds left. that could cover this and since that's the case i'm going to vote no but i might be able to help you with the answer to your question oh thank you so much thank you all right well that being said i will withdraw my motion then that motion has been withdrawn uh council member fred brown Thank you. You're next up. Council Member Fred Brown. I passed around the project cost estimate, and this is another one of those items that is not in engineering, is not in planning as a budgeted item. What we have done, if you look at this project cost estimate that I just passed around, This is the number one priority that I have in the 8th District, and it's at Manowar and Pimlico Parkway. And I've got the engineering layout on it, and this is what has been done so far. Engineering has met. We've met out there two or three times. You're looking at a total project cost of $127,000. The engineering and planning department already has done the survey design plat preparation, $16,300, and I took that off of that amount of $111,420. I've also contacted members Heritage Jones, the corner there, and I've contacted them, and they are willing to give us free right-of-way. So that's another $20,000 off of that that will bring it down to $90,000. And what this is, is this is something that should have been taken care of 20 or 30 years ago. But as you turn off of Manowar onto Pimlico Parkway, it's real narrow in one lane there. And we keep breaking off the catch basins. We have a lot of repairs there that we have to do. There's a shopping center there, a daycare center, some businesses there. and large trucks have a tendency, that's not it. That's my next item. I don't know that you don't have a map of this other, but if you can visualize it, if anybody's ever driven that, it is really a hazardous turn area. And to expand the right turn lane, this is the money that the engineering has said that they need and they do not have it in their budget or the proposed plan. So I wanted to do that. If I'd had some extra paving money, I was going to move it over. I don't have any extra money, but I think it's really a high priority and a public safety item. So I would move that we put that. And the reason to go ahead and put it into as a budget amendment or a budget item would be that it's already in process. and if I have to wait until October or November, then it wouldn't get done until next spring. But, I mean, I've already done all the backup work that I can do on it, and it's an in-process item. I just don't have any money. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second, and there are a number of people signed up. Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Fred, I like you, and I appreciate you bringing this forward, but I kind of feel like we each got a certain allocation of money already, and I could use another couple hundred grand easily in my district, no question. But I had to stop, and I had to kind of pick and choose the priorities. And as I look down the list, everyone has something on their list that they think is real important. I look at Council Member Scottsville, and I think, gosh, I'd love to have more paving, too. But I couldn't afford to do it anymore because I had a budget. And, you know, as far as some of these others, you know, decreasing bonding, getting a financial audit of golf courses. I think each one of us had a lot of priorities, but we had a certain amount of money. So to go above and beyond that per district to say, okay, your priority is more important than one of mine, it's real difficult for me to vote for it that way. And I understand it's important, but I could use another couple hundred grand in my district real easily that I wasn't able to use. So I don't think I can support any of these at this time just because of that. Can I answer that, Vice Mayor? You sure can. Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. This came about really after I had designated my paving money that I had left over. And so it was kind of a quandary, and it's been a – one of the things that happened here is that they were going to put new signal poles. I think you've seen those around Manowar where they're doing those big masks and doing signal poles. Well, they were getting ready to put a signal pole in there in the present position. But with this plan here, they had to change that signal pole. So this is what sped it up for me to get involved in it. And I think it's an emergency issue. And if it doesn't pass here, I'm going to proceed. I'll be going to Sally Hamilton's office. so but I really think I wouldn't put it on here if I didn't think and I know everybody's got priority I think this is a public safety issue and it should be and it's a high priority in my district and that's the reason I brought it forward and this is the mechanism this is the procedure Thank you, Council Member Stennett Thank you, Vice Mayor So, Council Member Brown you want to take this out of general fund this is to me a major capital project why wouldn't we put it in our bond package or even look at the map funds if this is a true public safety and again you allocated all your money to paving but you know this probably should have went to that this was your number one priority in my opinion it was it wasn't when i was doing my paving list it came about after that this is march okay so you'd already committed by march yeah okay well i don't know that the march that's when they started looking at the estimate. I didn't get the information back until April. And this is shovel ready? Well, we'll have to ask for the engineer right there. He's been, Doug is, Burton has been out there with me on a couple occasions. We've got a commitment to get the land there. We've got a commitment to put everything up right. Yeah, we have two more steps. Finalizing the design, which should be finished by the end of this month. In order to move things a little forward to work with traffic engineering schedule on the signal replacement. We set the design in a fairly short timeline, 60 days essentially, and that was a month ago. So the end of this month, we'll be finished with the design. And then the right-of-way process is much easier since they are donating that to us. The process there is that it has to get two readings, obviously, before it can be accepted. And then we do an easement agreement, and then that easement agreement goes through council for two readings as well. So there's still some more process involved. but there's no real hiccups involved to get through it. When's the traffic signal due to come in? Has that been ordered? Yes, that's been ordered. That's out of Jeff Neal's shop, and he can give you a more specific date, but I think it's at the end of two months. Two months. Is that the steel poles, I assume, not string and all that? Right, it's mast arm poles, not the string poles that are there currently, and we work with them. And where did the money for that come from? Jeff, I'll have to speak to that. so and i know that answer so if it came from map why wouldn't we take the rest of the project completed from map i mean it's not like we only funded half a project and now we're making councilman brown beg plead and borrow and earth everybody in this room but you know if this is a project already underway and we're going to do the light why not just take the rest from map it's 90 $20,000. I know it's in there. Our allocation of MAP funds are already spin up, so I'm not sure where the rest of the money would come from. You can come to the council with a budget amendment. We see it every week, so I don't understand why we're making him fight for this money when you all could easily ask us if it's already underway. Lights have been ordered. The design has already been started. Typically, the Division of Traffic Engineering does not do turn radius improvements. So the MAP funds that are in Traffic Engineering's budget were solely for traffic signal rebuilds and traffic signal construction. Well, I mean, you're over both divisions where it is then, right? Streets and roads, this wouldn't be in streets and roads budget? No. So if we ask the other commissioner, I mean, you may ask him. I mean, I think we already have the money. I'm not sure why we need to include it in next year's budget. I'd honestly have to talk with Commissioner O'Meara to find out where we've got it. just for a very simple reason. Because when we're talking about our map, I mean, we've got a lot of projects programmed in there. And so I'll be honest, this is not one that we had programmed in there. You know, I think we could probably look a little closer when they're doing mast arms to see what we might need to do from an engineering standpoint. That's not something that we coordinated with every time they do a mast arm. I think we look at some of the other improvements, but I don't think this is one that we were looking at. So in terms of do we have the funds in there right now, you know, one of the things that I know when we look at map program, programming map for this year's budget, We look at it as just another source of revenue, and, again, a lot of that goes to where they need to fund it. So I'm not sure if we have it right there, but in terms of why we didn't look at it, it's just not something that we've done traditionally, coordinating with them when they're putting in mast arms. Do we look around and see what other engineering projects that we could do around there? Okay. Let me get the CAO to respond. I think she's going to be able to speak for all three commissioners. I'm very familiar with mast arms. We'll get this done. And we'll get, I appreciate everything that they've all said, and Bill just turned to me and said, we'll get this arranged. So if this is what the council deems appropriate, then we'll get that done. Well, if I can finish up, Vice Mayor. Yes, sir. You know, I just want to say, I think this is just a matter of simple coordination. I think some homework should have been done before it came today, but unfortunately, I think the CAO saved us, and I think we can withdraw that motion and she'll get it done for you. Thank you. And I appreciate it. I withdraw the motion because my next step, and believe me, I've talked to all those individuals except the CAO. That was my last reserve or option. But I felt like that it was such an important item. And this was the procedure that all the councils laid out. And I really would put it in October to try for it again, but I didn't want to delay it. because I think it's an emergency. But I will withdraw the motion based on the information that we've got here, and we'll go forward from there. Thank you. Thank you. That motion is withdrawn. The next item is also yours, Council Member Fred Brown. Okay, we've got a map. Now, you've got your project now. Now, this is my second motion. I asked, okay, wait a minute. I get my day in court here. this is my second most important thing and if you look at the blue lines we got a grant for about four hundred and fifty thousand dollars is about two years old and we're going to in this summer if you look at the blue line it comes all the way from tates creek high school up to armstrong mill road and it is a trailway bikeway pedway 10 foot and then it goes to river park to the right and it goes to Calder Road to the left. I'm needing money once they do that. There's no grant money left, and I need money to do the Calder Road to Appian Road, which is the main thru-affair from Tatech Creek High School all the way to Tatech Creek Road. It passes Mill Creek School, and I need that additional walk. And I have no sidewalks. This is kind of a replacement type of deal with a sidewalk. And it takes, they've given me a preliminary estimate of $200,000 to complete that same bikeway, pedway, over to Appian Way to where it will do some good. And that would be an extension of the grant that's already there that's supposed to be completed this summer. This particular $200,000, I'm not, I don't really need to get it out of fund balance. But I would like to, I wanted to address it. It's right time, but I'm more interested in maybe that item being an October item of surplus fund. So I would defer that request to October because there's no immediate. Then there's no, we don't need a motion for that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Blessoe, did you want to, if he's not making a motion on this, do you want to speak to it? I'll just add one comment, which is I think we all appreciate your motion or the idea of adding trails. I have a ton of mine I'd like to add as well. And I think the question is just, you know, how are we on a priority list of these by the administration when someone's adding one or removing one, how's it impacting other options? And I think that's an important – I would like for the administration, whoever's in charge of all that, to figure out how they're done in priority so that we know by adding something, can we add 200 to trails and do something as opposed to adding snippets around. And I'm supportive of the effort. I just... Commentary. Let me just comment. I've gone to every area that we can and it still comes out of engineering and planning. There's not any direct budgeted dollars. It's not really a sidewalk issue. It's just an item out there that needs attention, and I'm always trying to get the biggest buck for what we can get, and this is really sorely needed, and it took two years just to get the first stage of the grant, and I don't have any sidewalks on Armstrong Mill Road. Incidentally, that is one of the main items in the sidewalk plan I think it's going to come along will be Armstrong Mill Road, but it'll be from Appian Way down the other way. So I've got a grand scheme. Of course, everybody does in their district. You know how you want it to look. And I've got a grand scheme on what I can do on Armstrong Mill Road with the best dollars and get the job done. Thank you. Thank you. Next would be Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. After seeing what money we have and what's left, I just wanted to start off by saying when the mayor came on the first couple years and when Newberry was here, we had to make a budget cut. We had to have surplus. We were in a deficit. And then the last two years, we've had surpluses. And I give a lot of credit. I know the administration on that, but I give credit to the employees. They come up with creative ideas. as you all can see the vacancies were pretty high over the year. Last year they did a tremendous job on the I can't even think of the name of it last year. What was the event we had at the Keeneland? Bluegrass, I mean the Breeders' Cup. Everybody came together at the Breeders' Cup. Every department did a tremendous job on the Breeders' Cup. We put Lussington on the map and it just was not just Keeneland. It was our employees that teamed together with this. And what I like to do, and I know that we only have so much money, I would like to give the 1% raise starting in December, which will cut this in half to $300,000. And also they give them time when the insurance comes out. If it goes up, we have been ahead of the curve to help the employees. So this would be, I think, a win-win for everybody. I feel that employees do a tremendous job, and I think it also keeps them motivated to keep enjoying what they do. And so I'd like to make a motion that we just start on January to raise up to one more percent. So move for employees. I have a motion and a second. I have a discussion on the motion. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. What's the reoccurring cost for this percent increase over the next couple years? Just $300,000? I mean, it's... The reoccurring cost would be the 1%, which is on the worksheet there, $614,000 in fund 111, 115 in fund 1115, cross. Does it impact retirement? Pardon me? Does it impact retirement as well? Well, it would increase your base. Where's that? This number includes all benefits. This. It's not just in this budget. Okay. Okay. This includes benefits, so this is the total cost. Yes. Thank you. House of Representatives. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So, Customer Maloney, the motion is for $307,000. Yes, sir. Not $614,000 because it began January 1. I know we had that issue last year, Commissioner O'Mara, where it was going to be a PeopleSoft issue. If we did it mid-year, do we still have that problem? Or can we do that in preparing the year-end money and payouts? I know it was an issue last year. It was very difficult. the the people soft hcm programming is is strained right now we're we're talking about upgrading that but would be in the process of the upgrade at that time so implementing something in january procedurally will be a great strain on the staff doesn't mean it can't be done okay Okay. And then in terms of raises, you all gave 3%, which I think is right at the world at work rate of 3.1 nationally. Correct. And then what about our other government agencies, UK, Crack County Public Schools, the state? I know we always look at them as well since they're in the same industry. Well, as best as we can tell from phone calls, so this is not official, but I believe the state is going to be zero. UK campus is looking at 0%. Fayette County Schools, 2%. And we have presented 3% in our budget. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a little bit of concern. I think last year we bumped it up over the mayor's proposed budget. And I think there's just a lot of things here that happens and a lot of things that could have some negative impact. I'm not against anybody making more money, but I think the mayor has looked at this, administration has looked at this, and a 3% raise in this day and time. And I realize it's, as Richard has said, it's kind of a catch-up deal. But those agencies that are mentioned there, it's catch-up time for them also because in those down years, they weren't giving raises either. So I think we've done a real good job of catching up with a 3% increase. And that's the mayor's proposed budget, the administration. They've looked at all of that and gone over it. And I'm sure if they saw where it could be increased, they would have done it. And remember, this is not an infrastructure or capital improvement item. This is an ongoing item that's going to affect us, and it escalates as you raise this goal. You might be looking at $620,000 this year or the next fiscal year, but that number there probably goes up a certain amount depending on their wages and their benefits and health insurance and all this. So I just have a real problem of, you know, not staying with the mayor's proposed budget. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. When will we know about the health insurance premiums? Will it be January or close November? Good afternoon. I think that BIM will have some numbers to us in mid-August in that time frame. Okay. And that will also show us if their premiums are increasing, we will know in mid-August and what the deductibles will be and so forth. Yes. Yes, it would be mid to late August. We have to have it in preparation for open enrollment, which would be the start of October. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. And Council Member Maloney, this was you proposing that this start January 1, correct? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to throw my support on this because I don't know if you all remember I sent out an email that was pretty explanative of what other areas of government are getting increase-wise. And just want to make sure that we all understand that the 3% for our civil service employees and some non-civil service employees is not comparative to what our sworn officers and other officers get, community corrections. So when we think about this, it's always hard for me to compare apples to apples. And I just know that we did go for a long time with very minimal increase, if any. But we just need to recognize that when we give one group of our employees by collective bargaining 5% and more than that in most cases, that when we ask to give essentially a half percent to the other employees that I would like for you to strongly consider it for that reason. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Yes, I would kind of echo Council Member Lamb's thought because I do think of other employees that have received raises. And again, having been a state employee and not having received a raise in years, we're still catching people up. I can appreciate that. It is a lot of money. But yeah, I think when we start talking about people's salaries and health benefits, we talked about that Tuesday. day, and I think these are things we do have to consider. And we also need to remember we're not competing with just people in government that are going from one agency in government to another state or local. I mean, we are trying to make local government attractive to people in the private sector. So I know Aldona is always talking about that with staff. We just can't compete. So I guess we need to try and make ourselves look as attractive as possible, I think especially in that area, because although we can never reach that number for some of these professions that we need, we do need to try and make local government especially as attractive as possible, not just in certain areas. So I would agree with Councilmember Lamb that we should really, and Councilmember Maloney for bringing this up and take a hard look at this. Thank you. Councilmember Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Maxwell, could you come to the podium, please? I don't know if you have these figures on hand readily or not, but Councilmember Lamb alluded to other parts of the government, sworn and so forth, that have had increases. Do you happen to have an idea of where we are, the big picture, as far as non-sworn as opposed to sworn and other employees' idea? I really don't, but Bill probably has those numbers. I just wondered how much we're off, or are we on target? I mean... It varied by contract, and I guess they don't have that right handy, but we'd get it to you. I was just kind of curious comparison of the different types of employees we have, where we are. Some might be, as Council Member Lamb said, at 5%. Some might be at 3%. You know, as far as their increases every year. So that's all I was asking, if you had that information. No, I don't. We can certainly get it to you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Sure. Susan, do you have it? Or can you? I mean, I don't have it off the top of my head, but clearly I did the research last year, and I'll be glad to do it again this year. I think what we need to understand, and I'm not throwing the other employees under the bus, they deserve what they're getting as well. I'm just saying that some agreements, they get not only a 5%, but they also get another step increase on top of that. So, you know, it's not apples to apples. It's just not. And, you know, kudos to the collective bargaining agreement people. Great for them. But it leaves our other employees out in the cold. So that's just my two cents worth. But I'll be glad to do the homework and provide the numbers again this year, like I did last year. That'd be great. Thanks. I appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think, you know, personally I'd rather see this money go towards our health insurance subsidy because I think it gives the people who don't participate in our plan, which is about $380, an advantage, a bigger raise, because the folks that do participate will see, as Council Member Maloney alluded to, an increase possibly. We don't know yet. That's still a big unknown. It's a little premature to say it will increase, but we do give a subsidy that I was one of the ones that helped write that five years ago when we started this, $25, $75, and $100. I'd rather see this money go towards that personally because I believe it's still pre-tax, or do we bonus the employee now because of Obamacare, that subsidy? Is it included to their income or not? Now, it changed. It's still pre-tax. Yeah, so it's pre-tax. So if you help them on the health insurance, it's pre-tax. If you give them this raise, it's going to be taxed, and the people who don't take our health insurance are going to get a bigger raise and a bigger advantage. But nonetheless, $307,000 is a lot of money, and our employees, you know, it's well-deserved across the board. I would make an amendment to Councilor Maloney's motion, though, and do 3.5% starting July 1. So it's the whole fiscal year. It's the same amount of money in the end, but start with 3.5% so that the burden on the administration in January is not realized, and it's for the whole year at 3.5%. So moved. Second. A motion to amend and a second. Discussion on the amendment. The amendment, as I understand it, is to raise by a half a percent rather than a full percent. It will give us time to know what happens on health care in the fall. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Bledsoe. So I think I'm going to ask maybe a repeat question, but do you want both of those things done? If this is a half a percent, are you insinuating that you might use a second half percent for health insurance? Well, I think that's a good conversation for fund balance. You know, if we really care about our employees' health care, and that's one of the biggest costs across the country that go up in people's paychecks is health care costs, then we can look at fund balance time and say, hey, if we want to help them more, we can. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I see nobody else signed on to speak. So on the amendment, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? there's at least one we'd sign in electronically if you would that reflects reflects passage of the amendment now back to the motion as amended for the discussion All in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. And that vote reflects passage of the motion. Next would be Council Member Scotchfield. I have two on mine. I'm going to go ahead and address the larger one first. And the $3 million for, basically, it's very simple to what we did with the fund balance last, whenever we last did it. All of us have severe paving issues. And it would take this $3 million, divide it up between the 12 districts, and give people the ability to use it within their districts. So you're making that motion? I am. I'm sorry. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion, Council Member Fred Brown. Well, I like the idea, but I can't vote for it. So I'm in a quandary here because one thing is that we have put in the bonding 2 million.8 additional. So this would give us another. And we have 12.8 if the budget passes. And that is a substantial amount of paving. And I just don't think, although $3 million would go a long ways, but then you're looking at $15.8 million. And we've been working on a plan and trying to address it there. And I just don't think this is a good idea as far as having to bond the money. Now, if you want to take it out of fund balance, I don't have a bit of problem. But the bonding part, I think, is critical because what we're doing is just upping our debt. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just echo what Council Member Farmer said. Council Member Brown, I'm sorry. Because we did just approve bond funds for 2016. that included more paving. So paving is always an issue, but I don't think that I will support the motion. I do appreciate it, though. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. All those in favor, please say aye. All opposed? No. So, let's vote electronically, please. That vote reflects that the motion does not pass. Two more items. Council Member Scotchfield. As you all know, every year I request money for Old Todd's Road and other roads for sidewalks. I am not asking for the full amount because after speaking with Derek and having conversations with him, there are a lot of issues with doing that road, doing the sidewalk on that, that need to be resolved. One of the things that I approached him is because we do have existing block on one side where new developments have been done. But basically he said the maximum would be the $50,000 to do a feasibility study for whether one side of the road would be acceptable and what the true cost would be going into it. Because looking at it, you just look at the street and try to determine the amount there. and I think this will give us a better idea and give the planning department a better idea of how to move forward with this. And, of course, we voted to give Susan more money to clear out the overgrowth on these type of roads, which would also help. So you're making a motion? I'm making a motion, yes. Thank you. I have a motion and a second. Discussion comes from Fred Brown. If I could have Commissioner Paulson come forward? It's just not there yet, but you are in process of doing a sidewalk plan. We actually presented it. Well, you presented that. Is this on the list of I would have to go back and look at the entire list. I'm sure that it's on there somewhere. I'm just not sure where in the priority ranking. But there was priority ranking on that. What this is about, in terms of feasibility, what we're really getting at is determining an estimate so that we can figure out a good cost. When we did the sidewalk plan, what we did for the most part is give you a linear square foot cost for the sidewalks. We can't really do that on this one because this is, as we keep talking about with sidewalks, there are going to be some that are more involved and are going to require more design. This is one that we know is going to require more. And giving just a linear foot estimate is just not going to do it on this. So this would give us a better sense of understanding of what do we need in terms of right-of-way utilities relocation and really what kind of, you know, just give us a question. So it's not a part of your ongoing budget for the physical year 17? It doesn't fit in there? It is not something we put forward now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. No one else is signed to speak. I'll call the motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. And you have one more? Yes. The other one was attached to the bonding. Got it. Thank you. That will bring us to Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I apologize. We're moving at a pace faster than we did the other day, so I didn't think we was going to get down to individual council requests. So I passed around a sheet about a position that previously existed in the government. I think from the research it was in the mayor's office, it was referred to as the EEOC office. And what this position did is that we're looking to bring it back or asking council to consider bringing it back under a new title, the equality and diversity manager. But to kind of build some consistency or continuity in government with this position, we're asking that it be placed in the CAO's office. And some of the responsibilities that this office would carry is it would look at government and address issues of equity and diversity in city government and have the ability to address those or build partnerships with outside organizations that are having similar issues. Another way this office can be a resource to city government is it can be used as a resource to help make recommendations for board appointments. And we see this office partnering with the Marist International Affairs Commission, also the Human Rights Commission, And then there's also an established commission that I think is not currently meeting called the Commission on Race Relations. So I make a motion, and we're looking at funding this position at 50%, possibly looking to hire someone in January. And I guess before I make the motion, I'd ask the CAO, Sally Hamilton, to maybe come to the microphone and speak to her. We've had conversations about this position, and she's also come to the same conclusion that it will have some value in city government. Councilmember Brown approached our office, and Glenn and I met on this with Councilmember Brown about this position, and if we would be willing to, if the council chose to fund this, were we would be willing to host this or not and supervise this position? And we said, naturally, yes, we would, because what our office does is more that broad, far-reaching type supervision of an individual than specific programs. I don't think there is any doubt, and what we talked about was there's any doubt that we can always improve our racial diversity. and that is something that we have talked about and Glenn and I especially talked about before. We do not feel a lot of times that what we're doing is that we're not bringing in a diversified workforce at the entry level so that we can have people get experienced and then promote up. And we are trying to find people up at the top level without having given them any experience to climb their way up there. So I think that's one of the things we can concentrate on. Now, I went back and sort of looked of I wasn't here when I think the position was in the mayor's office, and the question was, it sort of came up to us, who is really doing this EO function, the equal opportunity function? And that is a function that is being done sort of between employee relations in HR and law at this point. but as we told Council Member that we would be glad to undertake this if the council so deemed, and we would make sure that it functioned not just on troubled areas, not just on EO complaints, but this was something that would be to try to diversify our workforce. If that, Council Member Brown sums up. Yes, ma'am. So I make a motion that Council approve funding this position in the CAO's office. Second. I have a motion and a second. And I have a number of Council Members signed up to speak, starting with Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member James Brown, for bringing this forward. I do remember back in the day when it was in the Mayor's office, and I did watch it transition. And it was somewhat in the several years ago, it was the position carried forward in HR. But then I believe the person that used to do it in HR, they retired. And I don't know. I mean, I just fully support this. And I do think it is the right place to have it. I think it is a good thing for this government. And I think we need to go back to that. And I would appreciate the council's support. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yes, I also recall that we had it back in the 90s, I think, and I don't recall any specific instances, but there was a lot of confusion in that particular office area, and I think there was some politics involved. There always is, I guess, in appointments or whatever, and I just had a real problem there. And two things. I think we are already satisfying this diversity through our system, and I think it would be duplication. If we've got some problems in that area, I think it ought to go to committee, and we ought to look at this if there's some distinct possibilities. That's where it ought to go to is committee. And then the other thing is that most of the items that people are asking for here are non-reoccurring besides Maloney's, and that's what drove me on my vote, was I can see infrastructure and capital items on our list, but when we get these reoccurring items, expenses, and we're just, we've got dollars that are going to occur out there. So I just can't support it because of those items. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think Council Member Maloney and I were the only ones on council at the time, and we had this discussion back in 2006. There were a lot of reasons and issues with the offices Councilman Brown alluded to, and I won't go into that issue. But I think over the years there's been a lot of steps put into place to address diversity, whether it be in police and fire or government-wide. And I guess my question is for our CAO. You support adding this position? Did I hear you just say that? So, I mean, I guess if they answer, I'm not going to put you on the spot, But if the answer is yes, then are we having issues? Have we identified issues? I mean, the overall, what Councilman Brown said, do we have a plan if there are issues to identify it, and is this the answer to our plan, or do we need to discuss this a little more detail to see where we can best benefit? Because, you know, creating a new position just to give them a title and say we're addressing it doesn't satisfy the real issue here. Okay, I'll answer that question very, very honestly. Okay, it never occurred to us to put this position into the budget. So I think that signals the fact that we did not look at this as being something that we needed to have at this particular moment. Now, do I think that we could improve the diversity of our workforce? Yes, I do think that we can improve the diversity of our workforce. How that is done, I'm not sure about that. I think that we need to think through how you do that. That involves a lot of things. That involves police, fire, corrections, and our regular civil service. And I don't know the plan for how to do that. But when Council Member Farber came, when Council Member Brown came to me, as I said, I had never thought about the position. I felt that if this was something that Council thought, I thought he made a good case for it. If this was something that Council supported, then we would certainly be glad to put this in the office. But no, I had not thought about this prior. Thank you. And I'm sorry to put you on the spot. No, no, I mean, that's. But this is sort of putting us all on the spot. And I think the bigger issue is, you know, are we being as diverse as we can, and will this position give us that answer? I don't know. I mean, Council Member Brown, did you look at maybe looking at our citizens advocate and expanding their role and letting them take on this? Or what about the new workforce development coordinator that's in the budget? Could they assume this role? Or even one of the new attorneys that we just hired in law, could they assume this role rather than creating a new position? Because I think what you're trying to do is right on track, and I think there's some opportunities here. but I don't think we have a plan. I'm just curious about why a new position and not three positions we already have funded and are going to hire take that role. Yeah, I think that – can I respond? I think some of that has to do with being intentional and this is something that we're going to focus and be intentional about. Given that position to the workforce development person that we're – that position that we're creating, that person is going to speak specifically and intentional about creating workforce opportunities. I think looking at diversity and equality inside and outside of government is something that's more intentional and that deserves its own focus. I think this position that was in the past, I think where it was located in the mayor's office, and all those positions in the mayor's office are appointed positions, So they come and go with the mayor as the mayor sees fit at the time. So, you know, and I think the mayor now is doing a great job at looking and trying to address diversity across government. And even addressing city issues, I think this position is going to be more far-reaching. I think it's going to be more than just in these walls down here. I think it's going to be or can be a position that reaches out into the community. So I actually think this is something that will have a narrow focus and be more intentional about being diverse. One of the things that I didn't mention is some of the issues that are going on in our city, and one of them is gentrification. Since I've been in office, I've been in a lot of conversations with different divisions, with different departments, with people out in the community. in some instances that could be addressed as an equity and a diversity issue. This could fall in the lap of the person in this. this position and in this office and work with government to be more, I guess, responsive to an issue like that. When the gentleman came to the microphone during a council meeting with an incident that happened at Corrections, he came on behalf of his mother because he was afraid of retaliation. I kind of see that as a possible issue that could be addressed by this office. I think this office could possibly have the flexibility to address these issues. So I think it's more than just what the previous EEOC office did as far as looking at hiring and firing and promotional opportunities. I think it's more far-reaching and would be more intentional about addressing these diversity issues that do exist. Did that answer your question? No, it did, and I appreciate that. And, yeah, again, I'm not disputing the role and the value that we could have. I think we need to flush it out just a little bit more before we create a position. Now, do you feel it should be civil service? Is that what you're saying? Yes, sir. Yeah, I do. I think it needs to be. So how would that work in the CAO's office? I guess I'm trying to. If there's civil service in the CAO and all the CAO people are appointed, is that correct, CAO? So I'm not sure how that would go hand-in-hand in their office. Maybe, again, I think it needs more fleshing out, is my point. So I'm not ready to support it today. Oh, Shannon. Charlie Lanter reports to me, and he's civil service. Okay, Charlie's new position. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would equate this to kind of position, and correct me if I'm wrong, we've got a domestic violence coordinator that does work on behalf of all kinds of different agencies. And we all know domestic violence is an issue that everyone needs to know about. And we've got posters hanging up everywhere in offices and stuff. And we don't say, well, that's good enough. The savvy officer that we have or position that we have is the same situation. We've got people, resources that any HR person could send our employees to. who's dealing with some kind of substance abuse, whether it's their own or someone in their family. But we took it upon ourselves to say, you know what, that's not enough. I think I kind of envision this position to kind of be the same thing, that we would be looking beyond that and helping other agencies, including the government, to be more creative. And I think this is kind of right on point. This was something I just saw on Facebook, that Louisville just was chosen to, for some kind of diversity study, I'm not going to take time to pull it up, but out of five cities, Austin, I think Philadelphia, and some others, to address having a better quality of life for everyone and addressing those equality issues in the city of Louisville, which I think is a great idea. My first thought was, wow, who's in charge of this? And why aren't we doing it? And I would envision this position being that person who could look into those opportunities and those organizations that could do that, that we could help. Because whether or not you see it or you want to see it, we're not as diverse as we should be for a city our size. Even from our hiring to this council right here, quite honestly. but I think you'll see whether it's gender, age race, whatever I think we can do more and do better. I don't think we need to settle for mediocrity and I think this is just another position that will allow us to think bigger and be that university city and that smart city that is going to attract people and businesses here because businesses are looking for diverse cities. They want to see that we're taking action and that it is an issue that is important to us. So, yeah, it might need to be fleshed out a little bit more, but I think this has a lot of potential to help Lexington address those concerns that Council Member James Brown was talking about. you'll hear those of you who are on public safety committee, we've got some gender issues we've got employees that across the board in an agency as women have a more negative attitude about their office than men do. That says something to me and I think this would be the office that would address that to find out why that is and what needs to happen. So my time's almost up, but I would appreciate the council members to reconsider this position, and thank you, Council Member Brown, for bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I want to follow up with Council Member Stenet, the history. The position was a non-silver service. So they did not, I think this position should be silver service because I think it takes out the politics. And I don't think the mayor should appoint this person. I think this person should go through a special committee. I don't know if this is the right place to put it. I think it should be placed somewhere. And I'm not saying where. But the history that I remember, that the law department took it over. Is this person a full-time person that's representing the diversity in law? or how much time is this person taking to do this position? I think it should be a full-time position year-round, but is the law, how much time does this law, person-in-law, spend on this diversity issue? Current position? Current position. How much time does this person in law spend on this diversity issue? How much time does this person in law spend on this diversity issue? How much time does this person in law spend on this diversity issue? Well, currently I share that responsibility with the Division of Human Resources. So typically, I'm the person who responds to Human Rights Commission complaints and EEOC complaints in response to those on behalf of the government. So it is complaint-driven. So it depends on if we have a charge of discrimination that is filed by an employee. If it's just a regular, what I would call, complaint that hasn't gone to another agency, then those are handled by Human Resources. The reason why I'm asking this question is because I remember when they took the money out of the mayor's office and put it into this position, and if this position is created, that would tie you up from doing this position, which to me, after reading in here, we're getting ready to hire a bunch of lawyers. I don't think we need to hire as many lawyers now, well, at least one or half of one, so I'm just trying to find another way to create the money here instead of have to take it out of here. if we're going to switch this person back over into a different department and law's no longer going to be doing it, and I don't know if HR's going to be, if we're using some of the money to pay HR and HR's no longer doing it, I just think we should move this money out of there and maybe we don't have to use this much money he's using here because that ties your position up and ties everybody else to hire more and do more work. But the other thing is, I don't know if it's the right position where you want to put it. I do not want it to be a non-civil service. If you put it in the mayor's office, where it was, it was a non-civil, and it became a political issue. And I think I do not want to see this position political. I want somebody in there qualified, be fair, and not have to have a politician tell them what to say and not to say. So I would support any kind of position. I don't know if this is the right place. I would support what you want, but it may not be the way you want to go with it. But I also think you may need to find out where the money, you may get some of that money from law, because I'm just looking at here and I'm seeing we're hiring a bunch of lawyers. So maybe we may not even have to have as many lawyers, and while they tie up some of those positions, they won't have to do it all. So I support you, but I don't know where the money's going to come from. Do you see where I'm coming from here? Do you want to take it out of this fund here, or do you want to take it out where we did five years ago, which I think, as everybody said, it needs to be better. And I'm not saying you didn't do a bad job, but I'm just saying. Now, when you talk about taking money out of law, you see the commissioner comes down here. When you start messing with their money, they all come down here. I just noticed that. Heck, yeah, I can tell what's going on there. But it's just an idea. But I do support what you're doing, but I think we need to study it more. And wherever you put it, I'm supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Councilmember Brown, I believe in equal rights, equal opportunity, and equal pay, 100%. There's no question about that in my mind. I'm wondering, though, if this money would be better off, and maybe either the law department or someone could tell me, subsidizing the Human Rights Commission with this amount of money. Because, I mean, to me, that's a natural place to go. If I've got a complaint, whether I'm an employee, I would either go to the Citizens Advocate's Office or I would go to the Human Rights Commission. Would neither one of those areas, if we were to give that money to either one of those departments, because it seems like there's a lot of questions up here of what's the plan. And I'm for it, but I want to have a game plan as to how do we execute it and what do we get for our buck here? So that's my concern. Yeah, I guess I'll speak to the citizens advocate and the Human Rights Commission. Both of those entities work as a reaction. They work when something has happened and somebody fouls a complaint and they're trying to rectify a problem or a situation. This position, I believe, will have the flexibility and the wherewithal to kind of be more proactive. It would head these issues off at the pass instead of reacting to the situations more so. Give me an example. Because I know when Council Member Evans said there were some issues at the jail. Well, those are, I guess, we're being reactive to those. If you can give me a proactive, I mean, I'm open-minded on this. We have the topic of recruiting, minority diversity recruiting and public safety and committee right now that we're looking at it. This position, say public safety goes to this position and says, can you help us with our efforts towards recruiting? We're having a hard time reaching minorities. And they sit down and they brainstorm ways to reach the minority communities to get a more diverse workforce, and they put those steps into place. And then in turn, we as a city could possibly have a more diverse public safety and fire department, police department corrections. And then you don't get the issue doesn't come up that Lexington doesn't have a diverse public safety. I agree with you. So is this better in HR then? I mean, I'm just trying to get an idea of what's the plan here. I think it's a great idea, but what's it going to be? Well, I think the placement of it being in the administrative arm and not necessarily in the mayor's office, I think if you put it in the CAO's office, then it gives it the power and the flexibility to actually get some stuff done and not be bogged down by bureaucracy. But if you put it in HR, then it still has to go through the processes and the chain of command and may not be as effective as it needs to be. So I think the placement of this position in this office is just as important as the office. So can you make the motion, do we have to have a definitive location for it today? Well, I think all I would like to see is that the council would agree to fund this position. And then I know me and Sally had talked about maybe sitting down and looking at the JAQ or the complete job description of this office so it functions to the best of its ability. As I said, my only concern is how are we going to execute this? Where is this position going to be? And exactly where are the duties? That's my concern. Not that it doesn't necessarily we don't need to have it. I just want a game plan. That's all. If we agree to fund this position, would it be, I guess, the council's benefit to maybe have a presentation on what this position looks like and what this person's day-to-day responsibilities are and how they move forward. Would you be willing to wait until we get that presentation or kind of flush this out a little bit more before we go forward with this? I mean, do we have to do this today? I would prefer that it be funded today just to show the intent that council cares about this issue and that it's important to us moving forward. I think it would say a lot to go ahead and fund this position. And the way we hash it out and make sure that it works efficiently, I think we can do that as well. But I'd like to have it. And I agree with you. When we did our public safety links, that was a big issue. You know, how do we get minority recruitment in? I mean, big issue. But I just want to know how we're going to do it. That's all. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I know from my previous experiences that when we have had an EEO officer, there are two very important words. It has to be impartial, and they have to be approachable. And we all know that there are certain areas of government, if you have a position, that they might not be approachable. approachable. So I know this item is in committee, and I do think it would be good if we can move forward today with this and further discuss it in committee. I think that it has serious merit to have it, and I think that, I mean, I don't think that it needs to be in HR, and I don't think it needs to be in law. You know, I just don't think either one of those are good places for it. And no, they didn't pay me to say that. I'm going on my personal experiences 30 years in this government. And thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Brown, I'll move to Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Brown, for bringing this forward because I do think it's needed. and I think that it needs to be on neutral ground in the CAO's office. And I can give you an example of, for instance, promotions from within. Who's being promoted from within? So this position, if there were allegations made, for instance, that a division does not promote people based on their race or even if they have a disability or whatever, this position could thoroughly examine that and offer some guidelines to correct that. So if we see that throughout government we're not as diverse as we need to be, or whether it's throughout government or just in one division, I could see this, as Council Member Brown said, being more proactive. and really analyzing and looking at things. So I do support this. I support it being in the CAO's office. Really, when I think about government, I can't think of any other place that it would be better suited. So I think they could be a very helpful tool to HR, but not be in HR. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support this motion. And I just want to say I think our police do a wonderful job, but we need more diversity in the police department. I teach in the police academy. I teach a history class to the cadets, and it's pretty striking how few recruits they've had in the last few years. I'm sure it's not from lack of trying, but I think it would be good to have someone who's dedicated to that sort of outreach, dedicated to being proactive is the word we're using. So that's one of the reasons I support this. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Brown, for bringing it forward. I'm not against the issue or the topic or doing something about it. I think what I've seen over the last year, and granted, I'm new to city government on council, so I don't have the depth, the breadth that others do to address issues in the past. I just don't have it. What I do see is that we've done these new positions have usually come through a committee with a plan and an effort. And I guess what I don't see here yet is that plan. I know you want to do it in the future. And this is an $80,000 position. It's not a small position. It's a significant leadership role, it seems, to do a lot of different things, which are all very important and valuable goals and objectives. I just don't have – it feels premature without the comprehensive plan. And that's why I won't support it today, but I will support it moving forward as a topic to keep working on. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stendent, will you take the chair? Thank you. Well, let me start by saying I don't think we're in crisis mode. That is, I think we do at least a respectable job, probably better than that, on diversity issues. We pay attention to it. We do our best. but the community is increasing in diversity in all ways and this position which existed in the past i believe was able to address some of these issues i think we need it going forward i care about issues of diversity i have worked on issues of diversity for a long time but it's not always at the top of my mind. And sometimes I forget. And I think in retrospect, oh, I've missed something. Either I did something or I failed to do something because it's just not always right there. So I go back to what Council Member Brown said about intention. We need someone in the city whose full-time job, day in and day out, is to help us think better about issues of diversity, to help us work better about issues of diversity. So I believe that we ought to establish this position, but I'm also going to move to amend, because I hear the concerns about where it's placed and what the plan is and so on. So I would move to amend to delete the part of the statement that says administrative officer in the CAO office, so that the motion would read simply individual, would read, create EEO, coordinate a position, equality, and diversity manager. So move. We have a motion and a second by Councilman Massadi. Discussion. Okay, first up we have Councilman Brown. So your amendment to the motion, what were, what other division would you recommend putting it in? Or are you just for putting the financing in place to create the position? I believe we need to put money in the budget to finance the position, and we can work out where it's placed and more about its duties, which I've heard Council members raise questions about. But I think creating the position is the first step, and then we can have the discussion about where it's placed. I appreciate your support, but I probably won't support your amendment. just because I think where the position is placed is just as important as the position. Thank you, President. Council Member Lamb. I would like to ask the administration if we can, in fact, create a position without telling where it is actually to go. Thank you. I just asked Bill the same question myself because I have to have an account stream for it. And what Bill and I just said was if you could put it in the CAO's office for the account stream, and that certainly if the council chooses to move that, that can be moved at any time before. But it's got to go somewhere for the account stream. Thank you. That's what I kind of thought, that we can't just randomly choose one, although I appreciate what your thought intent is. but I won't be able to support it either. So if I may, with that clarification, I will withdraw my amendment, but I believe everybody understands what the intent of it is and what our options are. So thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye, back to you. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Brant, how did you come up with the salary range? During the research, the previous position was an AO position, so we called HR and asked for the justification for the pay for that position. So they gave you the pay range in HR? Yes, sir. Is this mid-pay range? Is it the max funding? I don't know if HR is here. I think it's 50%. Where does the $38,000 for half a year fall on the pay scale for this position? I believe that was funding that position at 50%, like other new positions in the budget. Right, but I meant, like, is it the minimum salary range? Is it the top of the salary range? No, we look at the minimum. Usually when we calculate to create new positions, we do 20% under the range. So it would be certainly less than that for hiring. So this is closer to the bottom of the range. Wow. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. It's question HR. What kind of background do they need? Do they need a law degree or do they need, I mean, you don't need a law degree. So what would you need? I would, I mean, I'm not, I'm just wondering what kind of background you need. No, I think that's a very good question. I would say that JAQ needs to be filled out so that we understand exactly what the job duties you want this person to do. And then we could figure out, once we know the duties, we can place it into a grade. But I would say let's do a JAQ on it so that we know exactly the job duties of – because I'm hearing a lot of different discussions about what those job duties might be. I'm just – I mean, I don't mean – I'm just curious what kind of degree – I mean, I thought you made a law degree to figure out what you consider – I mean, you're lawyers. I don't know what – what does Louisville have? What does this person or whoever, what kind of background they have? Do they have a social service? I'm just wondering, where do they work with on finance? What you're going to do is listen to what they just said. Somebody's having a problem with not getting a job because they have a handicap problem and they can't be promoted. They're going to be listening to all those kind of things. So is that more of an age? And, I mean, you guys are supposed to be hearing those, too. I just want to know the difference. This job is supposed to be unique and different and be more favorable. I'm just trying to figure out what makes them different than what you all do, what law does, and what they're going to be doing something to be the mediator. So what is a mediator at that? I think generally you probably would want someone with a 40-year degree that has experience in that area or some equivalent combination. Well, I'm just curious. I mean, when you come up with $83,000 a year or whatever the salary is, I just want to know what kind of degree you need to have to get this kind of a job. So nobody knows. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yeah, I really have a point of order because my understanding on the link, the council member recommendations they were looking at things in their own district this is so widespread its policy and procedures and administrative and hr and i don't i think it's out of order to have a request like this it's a recurring expense and i can't support it simply because it just doesn't fall in the mix i think i could support it if once it goes into committee and we discuss it and make sure that there was no duplication of services. But I think it's out of order as far as in the links, but that's my opinion. I'll consider that point of order, but I don't agree with it. And I would rule that it is in order. And again, if Council wishes to override the ruling of the chair, we just need a motion to do that. Thank you. Council Member Henson has spoken twice. I would need a motion to suspend the rules to give her a chance to speak a third time on this issue. I have a motion to suspend. Second. Any objections? No. Thank you. I'm just kidding. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I guess the conversation about this position, and maybe I have a different vision of it, and there's been a lot of conversation of what they would do. We think it's needed, but where should it be placed? And so in my eyes, I just wanted to share with you that I think the person would, Council Member Brown said earlier, would be proactive. They are not going to look at grievances. HR still does that. They are not going to look at HR law. They will look just as really, I guess, the way Charlie Lanter does with our homeless population. He's very proactive. Where are the issues? What can we do to make things better? So I just wanted to share those additional thoughts. And I totally support this position. and I think we need to move forward with it, get the JAQ done, do what we need to do. But based on the information that Council Member Brown gave us, I think he's been very thorough and I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. The question has been called. It's non-debatable as I understand. Wait a second. Excuse me. I'm not the first. I believe that a motion to call a question is privileged in Robert's Rules, and I'll take either of the present parliamentarian or the previous. I believe that because it's a privileged motion, you can always call for the attention of the chair. I don't see anybody who is in a position to tell me otherwise. but given that we have one person waiting to speak I would respectfully request Council Member Evans to retract that request I'm allowed to retract it then I will I think everybody I'm going to call it again after Councilmember Missani finishes. Okay. Councilmember Missani. Thank you, Councilmember Evans, and thank you, Chair. Glenda, if you wouldn't mind coming to the podium, just again for clarification. Okay. You stated that you dealt with this somewhat, and you shared this responsibility with someone else in HR, correct? Correct. So you deal with it as a reactive position, not a proactive, am I correct? Correct. So I only handle issues if an employee has gone to the Human Rights Commission or the EEOC in Louisville or Indianapolis and filed a complaint. Okay. And then I would handle those. If you haven't taken that step as a normal course, then any issues you have would be handled by employee relations, which is located in human resources. And there are three individuals who handle listening to grievances and any other complaints that you may have relating to the government. And how many complaints do we, on a given year, receive? Are you talking about the ones that are handled by HR, the ones that are... I guess in totality. Do you have any idea? I can't speak to the ones in HR, but as far as this year, ones that have risen to the level of an EEOC or a Human Rights Commission complaint, there have been four of those. Okay. So basically this is a completely different position, I'm assuming. This is more of a recruitment type of position where you're going to go to outreach, where you're going to go to Hispanic community, African American community, different communities, rather than dealing with you. so you're going to continue doing your job, what you're doing. This is not in lieu of. Am I correct? Correct. Is that, Council Member Brown, am I correct? And that's what I said. My concern was implementation. What's the plan here? How are we doing this? What department or what division this is going to be under? That's why I'm having these questions now. So this is completely different. They're going to continue doing their role, so Commissioner James Grant can't get too excited that she's going to have some more time for Glenda. but this is a more of an outreach recruitment type of a person who's going to do that kind of thing. Am I correct there? Yes, ma'am, and I believe this position will lessen the complaints that Glenda and her counterpart in HR receives. It may very well. I'm just trying to get it in my mind, wrap around, you know, what this person is doing in this position and where it's going to be. That's all. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Evans. Thank you. Call the question. The question has been called. The motion is as unamended. All those in favor, please say aye and log in electronically. All those opposed, no. This is creating the... I can't vote. It's locked up. We don't need to call this. We need a new... I'm sorry. We're going to need a new screen. So if people now would log in electronically, all those in favor say I oppose no. Oh, fine. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Before I recognize Council Member James Brown to continue, I just want to let Councilmembers know that if there's no objection, we'll try and finish this up. There will be some food at 5 o'clock. We can break and then go into the Committee of the Whole quarterly before Council meeting. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll finish up fast. I'm sorry, James, Councilmember Brown, Councilmember Stenet was seeking... The Committee of the Whole agenda is pretty light. Can we not just get this done by 6 and save us a 9 a.m. Tuesday meeting two weeks from now? I may be way off base here. I think we can get this done by 5. Oh, good luck. Okay. All we have to do is move it. Okay. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Another one of my requests is the driveway entry to Wimburn Park, evidently it has some serious patchwork that needs to be done. The parking wreck went and found some money last year and it patched over a hole and it's come back this year worse with some friends and it's really in bad condition. So I'd like to make a motion to fund $40,000 and that's the estimate that we got from streets and roads to have it paved and patched. I have a motion. Is there a second? There is not a second. That dies for lack of a second. Next item. I guess I might have to go to the CAO's office. Yeah. Next item. My other two requests are for a summer program in two neighborhood centers that are in the district. From my understanding, I wish I had made this request last year because this summer those centers are going to close and the kids in that neighborhood won't, unless they go to camps outside their neighborhood, will have any activities. So I was looking for $10,000 to have summer youth activity at the Black and Williams Community Center. And then, well, I guess I need to do them separately. So I make a motion to approve $10,000 for a two- to three-week summer camp for youth activity at the Black and Williams Center Community Center. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. We'll need to vote electronically. Still need one more vote. That vote reflects passage. Thank you. The other request is the same thing, but all the way across the district at the Charles Young Center. And I will say that these are not reoccurring costs. We're going to see how they do this summer and see if it's some programming that maybe these divisions can put in their budget. So I'd like to make a motion for $10,000 to be allocated for summer youth programming at the Charles Young Center. Second. A motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. I just wanted to find out what is our number? How much money? By my count, it's $9,676. Wow. The amount of money remaining right now is $9,670. Before this. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Brown, the reason I abstained on the other one is I didn't feel I had enough information. But I just know that at some of our other parks, we're implementing the volunteer programs. part of the position if we fill the safe parks program would that position would coordinate volunteer efforts with activities and things like that so I'm okay with funding it this year because of time to prepare but I think that would be something that should be looked at for next here. So there would be no cost through Partners for Youth and Parks and Rec and just your neighborhood. So just a suggestion. Yes, ma'am. I'm under the same understanding. That's kind of the same thing I took into consideration that that safe parks coordinator would be able to help coordinate activities going forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. No one else signed up to speak? I'm sorry. Council Member Massadi. I'm sorry. Council Member Brown, since we're running out of money, would you consider $5,000 at the Williams Center and then $5,000 at the Charles Young? And that way, because we don't have enough money to fund this second request. Vice Mayor, point of order. We're not actually spending the money yet. We have to go back through this list. so there may be something that was previously moved forward that we may not approve on the final vote. So we're going to have to vote on this again. This just gives us a placeholder. But we're out of money, though. Not really. There could be something that we don't agree with when we go back through it again. I know two things. So we have to go back through it one more time. Yeah, this is just moving it forward to a final vote. So the point is that the council will have to vote and make a final vote, and if we are over budget, we will have to either find more money or reduce something else. But there's no problem right now with running this. I just thought once we spent the money, if we didn't have it, we couldn't spend it. I think Council Member Stinn's point is we're not yet spending it. We're just moving it forward. Because otherwise, whoever's at the bottom of our list doesn't get anything ever. That's happened before, too. Okay. We're trying to avoid that. So we'll consider that. Councilman of Scotchfield? I have the same concerns. I mean, we've talked about this position right now. We're creating stuff without any input. Parks has done programming there. Why hasn't it been successful in the past? There's a lot of questions that go into this that I don't think this is the correct place to do it. Thank you. No one else has signed up to speak. If we can have a voting screen, if you would vote electronically. All in favor of the motion, aye. All opposed, no. I mean, we just want to give them all the money, everything you want. Everybody's got to vote no sometime. That vote reflects passage. Thank you, Council Member Brown. That brings us down. Council Member Hensley is not present, and he sent notice that he would not be able to be here. I will entertain motions if anybody wants to make them. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think number 32 and 33 we discussed at length on Tuesday, so I'll make a motion to just remove those. Second. Motion to remove 32 and 33. Any discussion on the motion? Are you up for discussion on this motion? No, I'm sorry. I was just kidding. I'm trying to move it. You're moving the train. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. Council Member Stinnett. I'm 34. While I don't disagree, it could be helpful. I think we did this last year. so I'm not sure the need personally why we need to do it again so soon. We just did the audit. So I don't know if anybody has any information on why we need to audit again so soon. I'll just mention that we talked about the golf audit in our link extensively and thought we would do it in the fall as a part of a comprehensive look at land use in general. And Councilman Hensley wasn't privileged to that conversation. Okay. So unless there's a motion on that, it would simply not be considered. And finally, the last item, number 35, is there a motion? Councilmember Stinnett? I would just say while this is a worthy idea, until we get a person on board and get them hired, and kind of, again, going back to what we talked about, a plan, actually how to operate the office, I think it's a little premature to give them $100,000. So I would wait until we hire that person this year, and then we can come back to that in the fall. So you're not making... That's just a comment. Okay. Absent any motion, I believe that completes the list. So... We need to do the revenue number. I'm sorry? We need to do the updated revenue number from the commissioner. It was scheduled for next Tuesday, but we can go ahead and do it if he... I believe he's ready. All right. And the suggestion is we get the updated revenue number if it's available. Thank you. Thank you. if you'd like so he's moving right along but let me let me even make it faster rusty it can extrapolate on this we we are looking good on revenue to make the forecast there is a timing difference between the end of the month in March and the beginning of April. Is this through April? Yes, it is. The timing difference at the end of April to May. So if you take those into consideration, the top four is tracking two, what we have forecasted. The other revenues are two. With the expenses, we're slightly ahead in personnel. We lost a little bit in operating. So again, if you take into consideration the timing difference, we're tracking toward the forecast that we presented in the mayor's proposed budget. I'll take questions if you have any. Any questions? No one has signed up to speak, so thank you very much. Oh, just missed. Kevin? I was going to make a motion to accept the mayor's proposed revenue number for this FY17 budget. So moved. Motion to second to accept the numbers as presented. discussion on the motion hearing none all those in favor please say aye any opposed that motion carries and i believe we can entertain a motion to we can go back through our list of things approved and go ahead and finalize it or we can wait two weeks and do it at 9 a.m on that tuesday whatever the pleasure is of the council members. If we can do it quick, I would do it now and be fresh. Then wait two weeks. If we can do it quickly. So the... Yeah, we would cancel that meeting at that point. So instead of reconvening Tuesday morning at 9 o'clock, if we can essentially, if there are any motions to amend anything that we have approved, Commissioner? If I could make a suggestion, you're over spent $330. If there's anything you want to amend by $330, you would then be in balance. You would start with a beginning balance of $1.5 million, and you would end with a budgeted balance of $1.5 million. Yeah, there is. Council Member Stennett. There actually is something I'd like to amend, and this was passed on Tuesday. A motion that was made to do an audit from internal audit on the vision of computer services. I think there was some misconception from a couple of council members who voted in support of that. They thought it was money being given to computer services to do an audit for themselves, and that's not the case at all. And I think we demonstrated by our CAO and our CIO, using those acronyms, that it's premature, that they're still working through upgrading the system. And I think until they do, we don't need to spend the 75 on the audit. I think it can come back in October if they're ready, but I think we give them a chance to complete their work and then come back and do the audit. So I hope that makes it clear. It's not giving them any kind of money. It's giving it to an internal audit to do another audit on them. So I would make a motion to remove that from consideration. Second. And do you have a number? $75,000. Motion to remove $75,000 that has been appropriated for an audit. Discussion on the motion? Councilmember Evans, are you? No. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. That motion carries. Councilmember Evans. That corrects the fund balance. I was just trying to figure out what the next step was. We're going to go through it now. so we don't have to i just need another explanation on that i'm just a little confused on the process we were going to reconvene on tuesday to get the final figures and to make sure we're in balance we've done that and they're still the council will still have an opportunity there'll be a final vote on the budget as in toto and there's always an opportunity to amend to make a motion to amend I was just trying to figure out what the gap was, but we've already fixed the gap because they have. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Okay, one more time. Unless there is further business to come before the committee, we stand adjourned and we reconvene at 5 o'clock in the caucus room. And there's some refreshments that should be here shortly. Motion to adjourn. Without exception, we're adjourned. Thank you. For thinking that my love could hold you I'm crazy for trying And crazy for crying And I'm crazy for loving you Crazy For thinking that my love could hold you I'm crazy for trying And crazy for crying And I'm crazy