# Urban County Council Work Session - August 14, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 14, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/45 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/45?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-08-14 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 15, 2026 - **Length**: 22,227 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on August 14, 2007, at 3:00 PM with Mayor Newberry presiding. The council addressed three main agenda items during the session, including the cancellation of the Anchor Baptist Church Industrial Revenue Bond Proposal, the discussion and tentative adoption of ad valorem property tax rates, and an informational presentation on a management team audit. The council conducted 10 motions and votes throughout the meeting, with the most significant action being the approval of property tax rate discussions and tentative adoption. Two members of the public provided comments during the public comment period. The meeting covered both routine administrative matters and important fiscal policy decisions that would impact the urban county's tax structure and revenue generation. ## Attendance All council members were present for the August 14, 2007 meeting. **Present:** • Mayor Newberry • CM DeCamp • CM Moloney • CM Stinnett • CM Ellinger • CM McChord • CM Lane • CM Gorton • CM Crosbie • CM Myers • CM Blevins • CM Maloney • CM Beard • CM James • CM Blues • CM Gordon • CM White **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted ten votes during the August 14, 2007 meeting, with all motions passing by voice vote except for one roll call vote on property tax rates. **Docket and Procedural Items** The Council approved several items to be placed on future meeting dockets [timestamp: 00:00]: • **Zoning Change - 1388 Alexandria Drive**: CM Moloney motioned, seconded by CM Stinnett, to schedule a public hearing for October 2, 2007 at 6 pm regarding changing the zone from Professional Office (P-1) to Neighborhood Business (B-1) for 1.140 net acres. Motion passed by voice vote. • **Zoning Ordinance Amendment**: CM Stinnett motioned, seconded by CM Ellinger, to place on the docket without a hearing the issue of amending Article 15-(9a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. Motion passed by voice vote. • **Zoning Change - 252 East High Street**: CM DeCamp motioned, seconded by CM Ellinger, to schedule a public hearing for September 13, 2007 at 8 pm for changing the zone from High Density Apartment (R-4) to Downtown Frame Business (B2-A) for 0.2195 net acres. Motion passed by voice vote. • **Industrial Revenue Bonds**: CM McChord motioned, seconded by CM Stinnett, to place on the August 16, 2007 docket an ordinance authorizing Industrial Revenue Bonds for Anchor Baptist Church, Inc. not to exceed $4.2 million. Motion passed by voice vote. • **Resolution 286-07**: CM Stinnett motioned, seconded by CM Gorton, to take off the table and place Resolution 286-07 pertaining to Risk Management employee reclassification on the August 16, 2007 docket. Motion passed by voice vote. **Administrative Approvals** CM Lane motioned, seconded by CM Stinnett, to approve the docket as amended. Motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. CM Gorton motioned, seconded by CM Crosbie, to approve the July 10, 2007 summary. Motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. CM Gorton motioned, seconded by CM Ellinger, to approve budget amendments. Motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. CM Stinnett motioned, seconded by CM Gorton, to approve new business items A-JJ, except item S. Motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 00:00]. **Property Tax Rates** CM Lane motioned, seconded by CM Myers, to maintain prior years' property tax rates with the exception of reducing refuse collection rates to 15.9 cents per $100 assessment. Motion passed by roll call vote [timestamp: 00:00]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved two financial payments related to the city's Fourth of July celebration during the August 14, 2007 meeting. **Resolution 399-07** authorized a payment of $35,000 to Zambelli Fireworks Internationale for providing the Fourth of July fireworks display. This payment covered the costs associated with the annual Independence Day fireworks show that serves as a centerpiece of the city's patriotic celebration. **Resolution 400-07** approved a payment of $21,750 to the Lexington Philharmonic Society for performing a patriotic concert as part of the Fourth of July festivities. This payment compensated the orchestra for their musical performance during the Independence Day celebration. Combined, these two resolutions totaled $56,750 in expenditures for Fourth of July entertainment programming, representing the city's investment in providing fireworks and live orchestral music for the community's Independence Day observance. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the Council during the public comment period at the August 14, 2007 meeting. **Bobby Clark** [timestamp: 00:00], President of the Bell Court Neighborhood Association, spoke regarding the rezoning issue at 225 Walton Avenue. Clark requested additional time for the neighborhood association to make a decision about whether they want to pursue a public hearing on the rezoning matter. **Atheen Stegall** [timestamp: 00:00], who identified herself as a senior citizen, brought forward concerns about a property dispute with a neighbor. Stegall expressed frustration that her neighbor was allegedly building on her property and that she had not received adequate assistance from the city's code enforcement department in resolving the matter. Both speakers used their allotted time to bring neighborhood-level concerns to the Council's attention, with Clark focusing on a procedural matter related to zoning processes and Stegall seeking help with what appeared to be an ongoing property boundary dispute. ## Contested Items The August 14, 2007 Council meeting featured two significant areas of contention that generated substantial discussion and community concern. **Employee Picnic and Half-Day Off Cancellation** A heated discussion arose regarding the cancellation of the annual employee picnic and associated half-day off for city workers. Council members engaged in debate over the decision-making process and its potential impact on employee morale. The discussion centered on whether such changes to employee benefits and scheduled time off required formal council approval, with some members expressing concern that the cancellation was made without proper consultation. The debate highlighted tensions between budget considerations and maintaining positive employee relations within city government. **Meadowbrook Golf Course Acquisition** The potential acquisition of Meadowbrook Golf Course by the city drew significant community opposition and concern. Residents and stakeholders voiced worries about the possible loss of green space if the city failed to acquire the golf course property. The opposition reflected broader community concerns about preserving recreational areas and maintaining open space within the city limits. Community members appeared to view the golf course as an important environmental and recreational asset that warranted city protection through acquisition. Both contested items reflected underlying tensions between fiscal responsibility and community priorities, with the employee picnic issue highlighting internal city operations concerns while the golf course matter demonstrated external community pressure regarding land use and environmental preservation. The discussions underscored the challenges facing the council in balancing budget constraints with employee satisfaction and community expectations for maintaining recreational and green spaces. ## Anchor Baptist Church Industrial Revenue Bond Proposal [timestamp: 00:00] Agenda Item I, the Anchor Baptist Church Industrial Revenue Bond Proposal, was scheduled as a presentation but was canceled during the August 14, 2007 Council meeting. The cancellation occurred due to an earlier motion that had already addressed this issue. No presentation was delivered and no speakers addressed the Council regarding this agenda item. The item was removed from consideration without discussion of the specific details of the proposed industrial revenue bond for Anchor Baptist Church. The outcome was that the scheduled presentation did not proceed as planned due to the prior Council action that had resolved the matter earlier in the meeting process. ## Discussion and Tentative Adoption of Ad Valorem Property Tax Rates [timestamp: 00:00] Jim Deaton and Connie Underwood presented the proposed ad valorem property tax rates for the upcoming fiscal year to the Council. The staff recommendation focused on maintaining the majority of the previous year's property tax rates, with one notable exception. The presenters recommended a reduction in the refuse collection rates, representing a decrease from the prior year's assessment levels. During the presentation, Deaton and Underwood outlined the rationale for keeping most tax rates stable while adjusting the refuse collection component downward. The proposed rates were presented as part of the city's broader budgetary planning process. The Council discussed the proposed rates during the session, with the presentation covering the technical aspects of the ad valorem tax structure and the specific rate recommendations for each category. Following the discussion and presentation of the proposed rates, the Council moved forward with tentative adoption of the recommended property tax rates. The item was approved, allowing the proposed rates - including the maintained rates for most categories and the reduced refuse collection rates - to move forward in the budget process. This tentative adoption represents a preliminary step in the city's annual tax rate setting process, with the rates subject to final approval in subsequent proceedings. ## Management Team Audit [timestamp: 00:00] Jerry Newfarmer and Julia Novak presented the scope and approach for the upcoming management team audit during this informational agenda item. The presentation focused on examining efficiency measures and implementing best practices within the city's management structure. The audit representatives outlined their methodology for evaluating the current management team operations and identifying areas for potential improvement. The presentation emphasized the importance of efficiency in municipal operations and the implementation of industry best practices to enhance service delivery to residents. This was an informational presentation with no action required from the Council. The item served to inform Council members about the audit process and what they could expect as the evaluation proceeds. The management audit represents part of the city's ongoing efforts to ensure effective governance and optimal use of public resources through systematic review of administrative operations. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket a public hearing on 10/2/07 at 6 pm for changing the zone from a Professional Office (P-1) zone to a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone for 1.140 net (1.476 gross) acres of property located at 1388 Alexandria Drive - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket, without a hearing, the issue of amending Article 15-(9a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket a public hearing on 9/13/07 at 8 pm for changing the zone from a High Density Apartment (R-4) zone to a Downtown Frame Business (B2-A) zone for 0.2195 net (0.3672 gross) acre of property located at 252 East High Street - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Place on the docket for 8/16/07 an Ordinance authorizing the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds for Anchor Baptist Church, Inc not to exceed 4.2 million dollars - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Take off the table and place on the docket for 8/16/07 Resolution 286-07 pertaining to reclassification of Risk Management employees - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the docket as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the July 10, 2007 summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve new business items A-JJ, except S - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Maintain the prior years’ property tax rates with the exception of the refuse collection rates reduced to 15.9 cents/per $100 assessment --- ## Full transcript We could. I should say preliminarily that today is probably going to be a little different. As those of you who were present for the committee of the whole little earlier, we are now employing a little different technology here. And so I hope everybody anticipates that we're probably going to have some gaffes along the way here as we try to figure out how to make this work most effectively. And if you'll bear with us, we'll try to get through the meeting in due course here. But it's good to see everybody back. The first item on the work session agenda today is public comment on issues on the agenda. I don't have anyone who has. Mr. Green is bringing me a list as we speak. I have three individuals that wish to speak. They didn't identify particular issues. So let me let me check. Mr. Green's points, Laura's points. She may have stepped out for a moment. Rob Sutherland. Rob Sutherland. All right. All right. Farewell. We'll proceed then. That appears to have been folks who were interested in some items earlier. Seeing. Is there anyone else who might be interested in speaking on an issue that's on the agenda today? Seeing none, we'll move ahead to docket approval under item two. Council Member. What was your name? I think. I'll put it up in the board so you can see. Thank you. It's coming now. Council Member DeCant. Yes. I guess two of the are in the third district and on the one. Let's see here. Let's see. I believe it's number two. It doesn't say Ellerslie Avenue. And whether it'll be put on with a public hearing or without a public hearing. And Mr. Clark, who is president of the Bell Court Neighborhood Association, which backs up to this project, would like to say a word or two about this. I believe it's number two. I don't have it. So if I understood correctly, you wanted to move that item two be the object of a special hearing? I think I'd like to have him say a word or two about it, and then I will make. All right. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm Bobby Clark, president of the Neighborhood Association and Bell Court. We were not informed of this particular action until this weekend secondhand. Our board has not had a chance to vote formally for or against a public hearing. We would like to meet this weekend so that our board can take a formal position on whether or not to have a public hearing or not. And so we ask the council to pass on this. It will actually stay on the dockets, my understanding, at Thursday's meeting. But we'll meet on Sunday, take a vote, and come back on Tuesday to tell you whether or not the neighborhood would like to have a hearing or not. Mr. Mayor, I have checked with the law department. I think the procedure that we would follow is that we would put it on for first reading, and then next Tuesday the Bell Court Neighborhood Association would come back with a decision whether they wanted to have a public hearing. If they did want to have a public hearing, I think we'd meet with Mr. Simpson and set up a time and the Neighborhood Association for a public hearing. If they decide not to have a public hearing, then it would just go on for second reading. If they do, next Tuesday we would set up a date, and then the following Thursday we would take it off the docket because we would have a date for a public hearing. So we will go at this point and put it on for first reading without a public hearing. That seems to be a reasonable approach. So thank you very much, Mr. Clark. And looking at the list, it appears as though Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I've been asked to request a public hearing to be heard on number four on Alexandria Drive. And I'm just trying to ask what dates are available. The next regular council meeting would be September 13th. The 27th would be too late. So the 13th is available. What date with that again, please? September 13th is a regular council meeting. There's no public hearing scheduled for that date at this time. I'm not sure how long this hearing would take. Are you okay with that date? As soon as October. I'm Obie Wallin. I have an attorney that can't make that date. He said any time after September the 20th would be better. We can't do it after the 20th. I think it's got to be heard by the 26th. Bill Salih said that that may be incorrect, that there's actually an October date that it can go to. So I'll let him fill you in on that. Mr. Justice's application can be heard by the council up until October 24th. It was heard by the Planning Commission on July 26th. This is the one on Alexandria Drive? That's correct. Yes. The council has until October 24th to hear that one of these others. What date? What date on October? October 1st. What about October the 1st on a Tuesday? Would that be okay with you? October 1st is a Monday. October 2nd. Thank you, Mr. Callender. That's a second. Would that be okay? Yes, that's fine. Okay. I move that we have a public hearing on October 2nd. Do I need to push these buttons before I make that motion? I don't know. Ask. I'll go ahead and make a motion. All right. I have a motion and second to conduct a public hearing on Item 4 on October 2nd. At what time? 6 o'clock. 6 o'clock? Would 6 o'clock be okay? Okay. 6 o'clock. Any further discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Let's see. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I actually have two items, but I think our normal course of business is to take care of the rezoning first. I have one more. And I will go ahead and make a motion to put No. 5 on the docket without a hearing. Second. Any discussion? Those in favor of putting No. 5 on the docket without a hearing, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Let's see. Council Member McCord. There's one more rezoning, Mayor. It's No. 3. And I think the attorney is here to talk about that. Yes, I'm Michael Ades, and I represent the applicant, KL2. This was heard by the planning commission. There were no objectors. Staff recommended approval, but the commission voted 4 to 3 for disapproval. So on behalf of the applicant, I request a public hearing. It must be heard by the not later than the 26th of September. And September 13th, if that would be acceptable, that's your actually it's the only regular meeting between now and the deadline that it possibly could be heard at. Council Member Duquesne. If there are no objections, what date do you want to have it on? September 13th? That would be okay. I anticipate it will probably be about an hour, hour and a half hearing. Eight o'clock. Is that a Thursday? Yes. At eight o'clock? Right after our regular council meeting? That would be fine. All right. I have a motion. And a second to conduct a public hearing on Item 3 at eight o'clock on September 13th. Council Member Gordon. Just for the record, I will not be here. Any other discussion? Those in favor, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you. Any further with regard to the rezonings? All right. Are there other motions with regard to the docket? Yes. I have Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to place on the docket for Thursday, August 16th, an ordinance authorizing the issuance of industrial revenue bonds for the Anchor Baptist Church Incorporated in the amount not to exceed $4.2 million. So moved. Second. Motion and second. Any discussion? Those in favor, vote aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I move to take off the table and place on the docket for Thursday, August 16th, the resolution 286-07 pertaining to the reclassification for risk management employees. So moved. Second. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I have a motion. That having been done, I think it would be in order to have a motion to approve the docket as amended. So moved. I have a motion from Council Member Lane and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Moving right along, it appears as though we're ready to consider the summary of the July 10 meeting. I have a motion to approve it. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Any discussion? Those in favor, then, of approving the July 10 summary, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Now, let me ask for a point of clarification from our able staff here. On these voice vote types of things, are we supposed to be voting by the machine or are we supposed to be voting by voice? Machine. That was one of the changes in their mind, the 13th, the one before that. Okay. October 2nd. October 2nd. October 2nd. I'm advised by the clerk's office we need to just proceed here, so we shall proceed. And I believe we're down now to we approve. Yes, we do vote. All right. If I understand correctly, we're now down to budget amendments. Looks like we're on. Second. I have a motion and a second. Okay. Those in favor, please vote yes. Here? Yes. Nothing to add? Here? Can you vote? Once. Here? Can you vote? Once. It appears to be approved by an overwhelming majority, so the budget amendments are approved. We're now ready for the items of new business. Are there motions? I have a motion and a second to approve the items of new business. Any discussion? Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I just have what I believe is a correction on item H on page 4. I believe that should say psychotropic medications rather than psychotropic mediation. If that could be corrected. Which item was that? Item H, Mayor. Okay. It says psychotropic mediation, and it should be medication according to the documented. If there's no objection, we'll make that typo change. Any further discussion of the new business items? Council Member Stennett. Yes, Mayor. Thank you. I have a question on S. I'm not sure who the appropriate person, Mayor, is to ask. Council Member. Thank you, Paul. A question about where are the funds coming from? Are these the funds that we appropriate every year for the Corridors Committee, the $14,000? No, sir. This is a transportation enhancement grant, so we would match this. So a portion of this would be matched, but the vast majority is part of the Federal Transportation Enhancement Grant for Versailles Road. Okay. What is Lextran's role in this? They will maintain the shelter once it's erected. Because I know they are involved in putting bus shelters of their own, and we do have a dedicated tax here locally to pay for bus service, so why are we paying it from our general fund dollars rather than getting that match from Lextran dollars? Well, we're not really paying it out of the general fund, except it's a transportation enhancement grant, but I think you raise a good or legitimate question. It was an eligible activity under the grant. We were approached by Lextran and Art-in-Motion and the Corridors Committee, and possibly Dr. Stephens can speak to it better. I guess my question is why didn't Lextran apply for the grant, and why aren't they matching the money since they are in charge of our bus shelters? This is a project that Art-in-Motion is working with Lextran, and they hope to expand the number of bus shelters by encouraging voluntary donations and so forth, and this is the first one that's been done, and the money comes from the grant, which we have for Versailles Road. The match was made for the grant originally from the Corridors budget, so it's not really coming from that, except for that part from the general fund, and Lextran doesn't have the money to pay for an art-type shelter, so this is kind of a trial balloon, and we thought it was worth doing. Lextran has participated in the location and will maintain it, as said. We had to move the bus stop a little bit. Well, I have no objection at all for the need for the shelter and to actually do the shelter. It's just a question of I know how important $14,000 can be to the Corridors committee because that's almost 14 percent of their budget, and that's a big chunk of change versus $14,000 of a $9 million surplus. Lextran is a much different number. No, it's not coming from Carter's budget, only the matching money. It matched the enhancement grant, which we got from the Federal Transportation Department. It's coming from the money that was received from the grant. Okay, so we're not matching that grant money? We did already when we got the grant, yes. And how much was that total, Doc? The match was $48,000. So we've already extended the funds to match it? Yes. The great majority of the match will go towards improvements on Versailles Road, which will be vegetation primarily, but also some fixed structures like fencing, signage, things like that. Well, again, I have no objection to actually doing the project. It's just where the funds are coming from. And, you know, I think this council has heard numerous times we need more bus shelters. I think Lextran is trying to do that. I just was questioning why we're spending money on our budget for bus shelters when that's their role now based on the tax referendum. But you've answered my question, so I think Council Member Maloney has another question, Mayor. Council Member Maloney. Paul, you may want to stay up here. Thank you. On page 60, you all put down 1,200 blocks of Versailles Road in front of Versailles Road Shop. We haven't identified a specific location. That's an error. Okay. Well, I don't want to vote on this. I understand. With this language in it, because I met with the state about three weeks ago, and they like the location that I showed them better than the location that you all are looking at right now. So my question is, I don't want to vote on it. I'll either table this to your word of right, because I don't want this 1,200 block in here, because I know the other folks do want it there, but the state said it was a better location. So I'd like to table this and to put the correct wording in here for the address, that I do not want this address to be the specific address, because the state has looked at the other location and has met with me and said that the other location is a lot better and safer. Thank you. We have a motion and second to table item S. It's not debatable. Those in favor of tabling item S, please vote aye. Let's do this verbally here. Or can you all handle the okay. Let's vote verbally, I think. Those in favor of tabling item S, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Aye. The motion carries. The next person I have on my list is Council Member Stephens. I was just obliterated. All right. Very well. I was going to say that I talked to the art and motion people, and they are very amenable to moving it, and we've done that. Okay. Good. Are there any further motions with regard to the items of new business? It's not on mine. Hang on for a technical timeout here for just a second. I have Council Member Beard indicating that he's requested to speak, and his name is not on my list. I'm sorry. Right now, he's popped up. And Council Member James, I just missed you, because your name just came up at the same time. So we'll catch you next here. Or if you don't mind, let me get Council Member James. That's fine. She's listed first anyway. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on item U. I had a question. This is regarding the 4th of July revenue. I was just curious how were funds generated and what's the balance of that, of those funds generated? If somebody could answer that. It says Joe Kelly, but I don't know who does that now. This is a fund that Ms. Ebel has been handling. Is there anyone who can address that question right offhand, or do we need to try to track her down? Okay. I can just say generally there were a number of different sponsors who contributed at different levels. All of that money went into the fund, and this payment particularly is being made from those funds. But if you want a more specific answer than that, then we're probably going to need to get Ms. Ebel to address that for you. Okay. If she could come down during meeting today? I don't know whether she's upstairs right now, but we'll see if we can find out and let you know. Thank you. Council Member Beard. It's somewhat a similar question. It's a cart before the horse type of question. If we contracted with Zambelli Fireworks for $35,000, how did we know we were going to generate the revenues to pay for them? Or was it in the budget originally? How does that process work? Let me see. Is she on her way? All right. Rather than my giving you some bad information, let's hang on for just a second and see if she arrives, or if there are other motions. Maybe we can attend to those and then come back to this one. That's fine. Any other motions with regard to the items of new business? I think it might be worthwhile for us to just pause for a moment until she arrives and then we can move on. I can tell you that in light of the item that Council Member McCord put on the agenda today, I think we are going to cancel the presentation by Anchor Baptist Church, so we'll have a little extra time there. While she's coming up to the podium, can I ask a question about item W? Sure. This talks about the agreement between Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and Division of Traffic Engineering. Can you explain how, or can someone explain how that has changed from the original agreement? It talks about authorizing a new agreement for control, sharing, and maintenance of the camera systems. How is this different than it was previously? And whoever would like to speak on this, then I'll ask maybe one other question. Canceling the presentation. Why? Thank you. Council Member James. We have been working diligently with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet in putting together this system, and there have been some major changes in the technology, and all this does is just update that technology. We're making some revisions in the original grant. So it's always been that the state had access to the camera data, the traffic data? This is not anything new as far as what information they're actually able to view? That works both ways, actually. Yes, that's true. They have, and now with this, we'll have access to it as well. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Ms. Ebel, if you'll come on up. There were a couple of questions about the payment to Zambelli Fireworks, and I'll let you all just restate what they were. So, Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. Hi, Penny. I was just curious as to the balance of the funds that were generated by the 4th of July after the $35,000 payment and how funds are generated. What are the sources of those funds? Well, the funds coming in for the 4th of July are all sponsor-generated funding, and the funds from the Blue Grass 10,000 registration comes into that account. Vendor fees for food vendors and arts and crafts vendors go into that account, and then all of our sponsors' money. And so we knew taking into account those monies, that's how we could pay for Zambelli's, the $35,000. Just for instance, for the Patriotic Concert, we have three major sponsors that actually pay for the Patriotic Concert. Even though we pay the bill, they reimburse us. So that money is still coming in. And what happens? Do you usually have a rollover balance with that? Do you roll it over, or are those funds kind of dispersed during the year? Well, we're operating right now on a new system, as has been done in the past, and so it will roll over. It's my understanding that it's been set up to roll over from year to year. So whatever is left from this year, once we get through paying the bills, we will have that to start with next year. Is it especially earmarked for the 4th of July, so we shouldn't see that money tapped into for any other event? It is earmarked for the 4th of July. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. And, Penny? Yes. I guess, and as I said just a little earlier, it sounds like the cart before the horse. Why would that not have been budgeted? And you have a budget. Then when you get sponsorships, you bring that back to us and ask for approval to accept the monies from the sponsors. How do you know what's going to happen and make it come out even otherwise, or not come up short? Let's put it that way. Really good question. And I think this year I actually probably did have the cart before the horse because I was coming at this new, and, again, we were operating under a new system, as you probably are familiar with before. It was an outside checking account, and, you know, we just wrote checks. So I should have, what should have happened is that I should have done the payment for Zambelli's should have come through you all before it was paid. And I did not realize that. So I'm absolutely doing this backwards. Okay. But we'll change it then, in other words. I won't make the same mistake twice. But we did know that we had sponsors, and they were specifically sponsoring fireworks. So we knew that we had that covered. And if, well, I guess we would have, if we had gotten rained out, I guess that would have upped the price somewhere along the line, or how would that, those people would have to stay an extra night or two or whenever we got around to. And that I do not know because in our contract with them, there was not a rain out clause. So it was very good that we were able to get the fireworks off that night. But that's something, again, we will be initiating a new contract with Zambelli's or whoever. We'll do a bid for the services, and I'm sure that's something that we'll look at for the new contract. Hopefully we won't have rain again, but we lucked out anyway. Yes, we did. It was a great day. Thank you. That's all I need to know. Any other questions? Thank you. In Ms. Ebel's defense, I would say that she found herself when she arrived earlier this year without a lot of background information upon which to proceed. And just so you're aware, this festival fund had been run out of a checking account that was subject to just a couple signatures in the office. We thought that was not an appropriate way to do it on a going forward basis. And so in the future years, I think we'll have a lot better structure to bring forward. It's just this year we were kind of unfortunately forced into a situation where we were making it up as we went along. And it's much, much better documented now than it was. Any further motions with regard then to new business? The floor is open for a motion to approve the items of new business other than item S. For the motion, any discussion? Those in favor, please vote yes. Can we do that? Very well. Motion carries. I would make a suggestion that they make those things a little bit larger on the screen and get rid of our seal if they could. I agree. Because I can't read it. All right. It appears as though we're down now to the presentations. As I indicated a few moments ago, Anchor Baptist Church has postponed their presentation. However, if there are questions, we can deal with those in the context of the issue when it comes up at the council meetings. Moving on, the next presentation is a discussion in adoption of Edward Warren property tax rates. Is Mr. Deaton here? I'll turn the floor over to him. Good afternoon, council members. We have presented last week a packet of information in each one of your mailboxes and alerted your aides that the information was there on the adoption of the Edward Warren property tax rates. I also have handed out to you today a summary of the rates that are under consideration today. This year, we have an unusual circumstance in that the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who certifies our role and starts the 45-day period, did that two weeks earlier than normal. And as a result of that, we're requesting that you consider these rates today and give us a recommended action because we actually, in order to meet the timeline, have to have first reading of this ordinance on this coming Thursday. We have to publicize it on Friday and then in the following week hold the public hearing on a special meeting on Tuesday. And so we're asking for several items of action. We're asking you to consider the rates, make your recommendation, set and establish the time for the public hearing on the 20th, I think it is, on the 28th. Yes, on the 28th. And give us the information so that we can meet our legal requirements for our first advertisement on the 17th and the second advertisement on the 21st. In the handout that I gave you, you're not only considering the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County government tax rates on the first page, but you're also considering and we're asking for your approval of three of your other taxing districts, the Conservation, the Extension Service, and the Health Department. Each one of their boards have met and adopted these rates and are asking you as the council to agree with them and adopt those rates. Just so that we have the full picture, you do not see on here a tax rate for LexTran because it was done by referendum and there's been a legal opinion rendered that it is 6% not subject to House Bill 44 and unless the people change the tax rate, there is no need or reason for it to come before the council for approval. Mrs. Connie Underwood is here who has done extensive work on this and has the history and we would gladly entertain questions. Council Member Stephens. It worked. Good. My question related to the change in the tax rate or maximum allowable rates or not to change. You're recommending that we adopt the or do you have a recommendation as far as whether we adopt the present tax rates or we go to the maximum allowable rates? As the budget officer who one of my charges is trying to maximize the collection of revenue, professionally I would recommend adopting the maximum allowable rates, which would be the one change in the general services from 9.9 cents per hundred on personal property up to 10.8. And then we have to, under refuse collection under House Bill 44, to stay within the 4% and without generating the possibility of a tax recall petition, we have to actually reduce that rate from 16 cents to 15.9 cents. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. I just have a quick question and clarification. On the second page, is it a typo to say it's going from .031 to .31, for example, on the extension service? Are those typos? Yes. My backup says yes. Thank you. That's all I have. Council Member Spinnett. Thank you, Mayor. On street cleaning, what is the need to increase that by the 60, I assume that's six-tenths of one cent? For the maximum from .94 to 1.0? Right. It was a calculation to bring it up to the allowable amount, simply to make sure that we had additional revenue if they wanted to put in additional street lights. There is sufficient money in that particular part of that fund to do everything that is scheduled this coming year and probably half of next year. So there's no emergency or crisis while we need to increase it? No. That's street cleaning. Right. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Beard. How do we handle a library? How is that nickel handled? It isn't on here, so I assume that we carve it out somehow and send it to them. Yes. It's a funding level. We set the general real property tax rate at eight cents, and five cents out of that eight goes to the library. Okay. It's just not apparent here, and maybe not to the public either, that we don't actually see eight cents. We actually only see the three cents. Right. And actually, it's a funding level. It's not, you know, you don't actually give them the tax dollars. If our rate was four cents, we would still give them five. I understand. Yes. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. Mr. Deaton, just a couple clarifications. You sent us a packet on August the 8th regarding the tax rates. Yes, ma'am. And there were two options for general services district fund. Option one adopted existing levels, and option two adopted tax rates at last year's level except for personal property. So on your handout from today, the recommendation is showing option two. Is that correct? We're presenting to you for your consideration and your information back to us both of the options. The prior year rates is in the left column, and the maximum allowable rate is the increased one that would produce the additional $315,680 in fund balance. Okay. So prior year rates, which then is your option one, remains the same. And then option two, the maximum allowable, would mean an increase in personal property tax. Yes, ma'am. Is that correct? Yes. And as far as the general services, I just want to be sure I've coordinated the two of them together. Let me try to shed some light on that. Yes. While Mr. Deaton's objective to raise revenue is admirable, my proposal to the counsel would be we leave all the rates the same with the exception of the refuse tax, and we reduce that such that we're not going to be confronted with a referendum option. Well, that – I actually – yeah, that cuts to the chase. Thank you. I actually was going to make my opinion on that, which was not to raise any rates because we're going to be looking at the stormwater sanitary sewer. Sure. I agree entirely. Possible fees. So I did have a question. Would you be open to a question on your previous handout from August the 8th about the homestead exemption? Yes. I'll let my expert – And it's an easy question because you had really good information in here about the homestead exemption, how many people take it. It's for over 65. My question is, have we thought far enough ahead about when the baby boomers are all over 65 and may choose to take their homestead exemption? Are we projecting out in terms of that, or have you kind of not gotten to that yet, or? We haven't really projected out. It actually – I think when it actually happens for you, you don't choose. The PVA essentially tells you, oh, by the way, you now have a homestead exemption. So everybody – okay. I think they automatically – for my mother, anyway, they automatically signed her up. So it's automatic. Yeah, it's automatic, and the amount of the exemption is set by the state. Well, before that happens, we'll have another census. Yes. And it might be – just as a way of thinking forward, it might be really good for us to look at that because it's going to be a large number of people who will be taking that if it's automatic. And it will cut down on what comes to us. So just to kind of put that in the hopper. Yes. And so that's all my comments. Thank you, Mayor. We had a motion a minute ago, I think, from someone. Council Member Lane. Yes. That would be good. Just so we can have something on the table here. Thank you, Mayor. I make a motion to maintain the prior year's property tax rates, with the exception that the refuse collection rates shall be reduced to 15.9 cents per 1,000 assessment. I have a motion and a second. Second. Any further discussion on that motion? Mayor, clarification. Per 100 of assessment, not 1,000 of assessment, please. Thank you. That's correct. Per $100. Thank you. Small correction. Anything further? All right. Those in favor, then, please vote yes. Those opposed, vote no, and we'll see the results here. It appears to be unanimous. The motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. I know that some of you have had an opportunity to visit with folks from management partners, but let me recognize Jerry Newfarmer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of Council. Good afternoon. We are at the beginning of our review of your government, and the Mayor asked us to come in and make a presentation that would describe the scope and the approach that we're taking in doing this review and give you an opportunity in a work session format to ask questions, if you like. We have begun the process of chatting with each member of Council and indeed have had the opportunity to talk, I think, with most of you. There are a couple that the arrangements have yet to be completed, but that will provide an opportunity for input, which we're very much looking forward to, and what we'll do here, if we can get the technology right and so on, is to give you an idea of the approach that we're taking and so on. The goal of the project is basically to, from an outside perspective of expertise in local government, take a look at all of the work and the activities of your government. The goal is to, in effect, do a physical exam of the government, see what people do, to look at the organizational structure, the policies, processes, staffing levels, operational practices, performance management system, virtually every dimension of the operation of the government, and first come to an understanding of how it's currently operated and then comparing that with best practices and providing all of those services and in doing that kind of work in other local governments around the United States or in the private sector, if there is a comparable kind of thing, come forward with recommendations and ideas for improvement. We think there are some keys to success in doing this kind of work, and I'll talk in a minute about our credentials as a firm. The first key to success in doing this is respect for the history and the culture of your government and its enterprise. There are literally thousands of human beings that, on your behalf, deliver services day in and day out to the residents of Lexington. The way they do it, what they do, has all developed over a long period of time and incrementally and a piece at a time for very good reasons. And so when we come in to take a look at that, our mindset is to understand how and why and what the work is that your staff does, take a careful look at that, and try and do that with a positive tone. We, having said that, do it systematically. We look at everything that's done, literally sort of take the place apart. We apply what we think is thoughtful analysis to understanding of what's done and the application of best practices techniques. And then we develop that analysis, lay it out in a way that communicates the ideas that are involved and the ideas for improvement. And we'll give specific recommendations for implementation, along with ideas about how that can be done. Our focus in doing this kind of work is very much on implementation. If there's a bias that we have, it is that this kind of work is useful only insofar as the ideas that result from it are useful to the organization and actually get implemented. So that is very much our bias. Management Partners is a firm that is established to do exactly this kind of work. We specialize in local governments. We're based in Cincinnati, is our headquarters office. We also have an office in San Jose, California, and have about 35 professionals that work with us as a firm. All of our staff are people who have actually served in local government and know what it takes to do that and to do that well, and particularly what's involved to serve citizens and residents who, after all, are the reason that government exists. We have been doing this for 13 years. The company started in 1994. We've worked in most of the major cities of the United States, not all, but most of them, and a lot of the smaller cities, too. We have a number of clients in Kentucky. We worked with the city of Louisville and Jefferson County on their merger over the last four years and have, in addition to that, done work with a number of clients elsewhere in the state of Kentucky, particularly in this region. I'm joined here this afternoon by Julia Novak. Together with Julia, we'll provide leadership to our team doing the work, and I'd like now, if I may, to ask Julia, Mr. Mayor, to talk a little bit about our team and, more importantly, about the project scope and approach and so on. Julia? Thank you very much. Jerry mentioned one of the things that's unique about our firm is that the folks that are on our team are people who have worked in local government, and I've listed the names up there of some 14 different folks who will be working on this project with us, a combination of generalists and specialists, people who have a background as general local government managers, former city managers, former budget directors, agency directors. We also have people who have credentials in very specific fields, professional engineers who've worked in public works, certified planners who've been city planners, city attorneys, et cetera. So it's a great combination of people that we bring to the table when we come and look at a complex organization such as you have here in Lexington. The work plan itself that we're executing involves seven specific project steps. We started the project, had an opportunity to meet with many of you all in the last couple of weeks to identify what your hopes and expectations are for this review. We're doing some analysis of the organization, and then we're, over a period of two closely connected stages, going to be looking at those agencies within the government that provide support services to the rest of the government and those agencies within the government that serve the public directly. We'll wrap all of that up with a report and an action plan to assist with implementation. But just to understand a little bit about what our plan of work looks like in those seven phases, one of the things we want to get a really firm understanding on is the variety of programs, kind of what exactly are the different programs. You have seven different departments, a number of different divisions, but then within that structure there are a number of programs that are actually serving the community. So what are your core services? We will be interviewing employees one-on-one over the next coming months, conducting focus groups. We've identified probably the opportunity to talk to some 250 employees through these focus groups. We plan to stay in very close connection with the administration as we're working on the project and prepare a written report that will be available at the conclusion of our work, as well as, again, an action plan that takes each of the recommendations. And as Jerry mentioned, we have a bias for implementation. Each of the recommendations will be turned into an action plan with the steps, you know, what is it going to take to get this done so that management has an opportunity to track implementation and ensure that this doesn't just sit on the shelf and gather dust, as they say. Part of what we'll be examining as we look at the organization is how performance is managed. We say that very holistically. That means how are programs measured in terms of the use of performance measures, how are projects managed, what does the management system of the organization look like, daily reporting, regular reporting, what kind of reports are generated on a regular basis, and how is that all integrated with the legislative and policymaking function that, obviously, you all are in charge of here. As we look at all of these, we look for how communication happens in the organization because ultimately that is the key to results. We will be doing some benchmarking. We've identified some communities that Lexington has typically and historically compared itself to. We'll also be kind of taking a fresh cut at that and seeing if there's some other communities that we might recommend that you include. We distinguish that from best practice review. Within each of the core services, there is a best way of doing it somewhere, and certain things may work in this jurisdiction, other things may not. We will survey what's out there and help identify best practices that are scalable and implementable here in Lexington. Certain processes that we will be examining will lend themselves to process mapping. Perhaps it relates to development review, perhaps to the hiring process, the purchasing process, things that we can actually do a process map of and understand what all the steps are. I mentioned earlier that we'll be doing focus groups as well as the action plan for implementation. But those are all important ways that we learn as part of our project. The schedule, as we mentioned, we're underway. We've done some of the initial interviews along with the organizational analysis in July and August. Field work began in earnest this month as well and will continue very aggressively into September and October when we will have a pretty substantial presence here in Lexington on the project. And we will hopefully wrap it all up towards the end of 2007 with a report that we will be preparing again in early 2008. As Julie indicated, our end deliverables will be a detailed project report that will contain all the analysis and recommendations. And in addition to that, a draft action plan that will take all of the recommendations and put them into a document that the management can use to actually manage their implementation. It will define milestones and timelines and recommend priorities and accountabilities for every single recommendation in the expectation that it will all be implemented. That represents or will represent for your staff a considerable amount of additional work because everybody's working hard right now doing the services that they presently do for the city. And when any analysis is done like this and comes forward with a large number of recommended actions that have to be taken to be implemented, the people who generally have to take those actions are the very same people who are now working full-time for you to deliver services. So that's a reality that we're sensitive to, aware of, and have considerable experience working with clients just like this unified government in actually implementing. So we'll be in a position to advise with respect to doing that. We know that there are a number of initiatives underway. Obviously, work is in progress day in and day out. In addition to that, there are policy areas that you as council members and your committees have an interest in. And it is our responsibility and commitment to sync our work with yours in a seamless way. And we've had good preliminary meetings with the staff, as Julie indicated. The mayor and his staff have been very supportive in helping this work get off on a positive tone, and we look forward to a good successful collaboration. Let me add just a couple of things. One is this is an enormous undertaking, and the end result will be a very significant document as far as the day-to-day operations of urban county government are concerned. It will not be the type of thing that people get real excited about. It's not a document that will be particularly useful when you go to a neighborhood association meeting and visit with constituents generally because it will be kind of a technical document. But at the end of this whole process, I think we will identify a whole assortment of things we can do faster, better, and cheaper for the benefit of the taxpayers. And so to that degree, it is enormously important to our constituents so that we spend as little money as possible and get the best possible results in terms of the services that we deliver. So I think when this document is made available to us later this year, first part of next, we'll be then challenged to undertake a number of actions in order to improve the delivery of services. I certainly expect that to be the case and have no reason to believe otherwise. So I'm looking forward to going through the process. As those of us who are involved with the process of managing urban county government every day have seen, there are a multitude of things that can be done better. And we have tried to make some progress on that front, but there's still an awful lot of things that need to be done better in the future than what they've been done in the past. And I think the folks from management partners will enable us to identify those and then put in place a process by which we can make those changes. So thank you all for your presentation. Let me see if there are questions here that anyone might wish to ask. I don't have anybody on that. See, there's nobody on that. Okay. Let me get this straightened out on my screen and then we'll go to Council Member Stevens. Okay. Council Member Stevens, Senate. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you all for coming. I know I had an opportunity to spend an hour or so with you all the other day. And, you know, we get a bad rap a lot of times for outsourcing things or using too many consultants in government. But I think, you know, the big thing, especially on this type of in-depth look in the government, is that the average rank employee as well as even a council member, for that matter, can speak freely, can speak openly, and speak honestly. And if we were to do this in-house, we probably wouldn't get that with fear of retaliation, et cetera. So, you know, I appreciate the ability to be frank with you all. I appreciate you all and the expertise you've shown so far. I know a lot of people are excited about it in the community as well as in government here, a lot of good things so far. And, you know, I've been waiting two years to see something like this done since I've been on council. And I hope every council member really took advantage of their time with you all. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. If I may comment, Mayor, I appreciate that comment. In fact, in a real sense, what we are for you is you're a link to the outside world of local government. Basically, as professionals, we've spent time over the last 13 years in dozens of separate local governments. So we see how different people do different things, what the best practice performers are and how they work. And so we're, in effect, your link, your information resource to tap that database nationally. And that's really, in a sense, the role that we'll serve in helping you to do this. Well, I think on that note, the most important thing is for us to institutionalize the things you find so that it outlasts all of us here. It keeps going. It's something of policy embedded in government that we don't have to go back every two years and reinvent the wheel. I think that's going to be the most important part is using your expertise and trying to do that. Right. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I also wanted to thank you very much, both of you, for coming. And I guess really to Council Member Stennett's comments, I would just say ditto and amen. I really look forward to your recommendations because I think they'll have the expectation that they will allow us to be more efficient four years into the future, which I think that we need. I did have one small question. Julia, you mentioned interviews with employees. How will you be selecting those 250 or so employees? And will part B is will that include sworn employees? Thank you. I think what you're referring to is the focus groups, which are group sessions. And what we have discussed so far is identifying there are several that we want to have that are targeted audiences. For example, we would like to conduct a focus group of people who are customers of your fleet operation, to get a sense of them as customers, to do a focus group of folks who are regular users and interact regularly with the HR department out there in the different operations. So there are certain targeted things that we want to do. Then we're going to have ten focus groups that will be open to all essentially non-supervisory employees, try to open it up to line employees without supervisors in the room so they have an opportunity to speak freely. And we will target them at locations to encourage employees from different sectors of the government to participate. So we will try to use public safety facilities to encourage public safety workers, police, fire, corrections to participate. They'll have an opportunity to volunteer. We plan to do some at parks and recreation facilities, perhaps one of the social service sites, and some kind of general neutral type sites. So hopefully through that there will be a message essentially getting out to all employees, letting them know how to sign up for those focus groups in the coming weeks. And they'll probably be scheduled in September. So anyone basically could sign up. Correct. I mean, there will be a limit, I would suppose. There is a limit. We need to keep each group to about 20 employees. So it will be on a first-come, first-served basis. The other thing that I will add is that for those employees who don't have an opportunity to participate in a focus group or perhaps that's not a comfortable setting for them, we're also going to supplement that with a survey. It's designed to be an online survey. We'll also make hard copies available for employees who don't have access to the Internet so they can complete it and fill it out for us on a hard copy. But we will also be generating a survey in September. Okay. So will all employees be asked to fill out the survey? Yes. Very good. They'll have an opportunity to do that. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Council Member Stevens. Thank you for your presentation. I'm looking forward also to your – you said you're doing a physical examination, and I look forward to your diagnosis and also any extirpated surgery that you may contemplate. But have you done any other merged governments? Yes, we have. I mentioned that we have worked with the City of Louisville over the last four years since they have been merged. We've worked with the City of Columbus, Georgia, City County of Columbus, Georgia, which is also a merged government. They may be closer to us than Louisville. Louisville is quite different. Everyone is different. One point that is important to understand is that every government is different in significant ways. The core services that you provide may be similar, but the environment within which you work, the differences one state to the next are substantial. And because of the state laws under which you work and so on. So there's lots and lots of differences and uniquenesses in one jurisdiction to the next. Size is another factor that's very important. Do you go into determination of policy and how it's done in the government? I'm sorry, I didn't understand. I said do you do analysis of how we determine policies and how they're executed? We focus on the execution side, sir, in terms of the scope of work of this engagement. Basically what we're interested in is how the government is organized and plans and manages the work that it does to deliver services to citizens. That's a little different thing than the policymaking process. It is not within at least our scope of work as it currently exists to examine how you all do your work at this level as a council. That's something we do and have done that on a number of occasions with lots of different jurisdictions. That's not within the scope of work for this particular project, which focuses on all the departments and agencies of the government. So you're interested primarily in the delivery of services? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gray. I've shared the sentiments of others, especially with the mayor, that this is a big effort, exhaustive effort, and we feel like you guys have certainly got the experience and the skill sets to do it. Jerry, in my conversation with you yesterday, and I was a little bit confused by the scope, because in my conversation with you yesterday you said performance measures was or identifying performance metrics was not a part of the scope. And so you had performance measures. So you're basically evaluating the extent to which performance measures are today being implemented? Yes. And where? And the status of project management skill sets within the government, for example? That's correct. That's correct. So we would so the scope of this assignment would not include identifying metrics? We may suggest some as we go as a part of the recommendations, but that's not the purpose of this project. We, if I may, to do performance measures for our government as a whole is a process of coming in for each program and developing a family of measures that meet all of the both policymaking and operational needs of the government. And that's a separate transaction. It's a one-time transaction, but it's a major initiative to do that. This project rather is the more general project of focusing on what the work is and how it's done to see what savings can be developed and efficiencies can be encouraged. In the course of doing that, you cannot not look at the management processes of the government, and we will do that. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion, questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor, members of council, thank you. I appreciate you being here. That takes us down now to the council reports, and I'll start here to my right and work around Vice Mayor Gray. I have no report, Mayor. Thank you. No report, Mayor. I actually have a report. I just wanted to thank everybody who worked on the back-to-school backpack program over at Woodhill Park on Saturday. We had several schools there, Cassie Elementary, Breckenridge Elementary, Crawford Middle School, Hayes Middle School, Morton Middle School, and Henry Clay High School. I want to especially thank the police. The community service unit was out there as well as the clear unit. And our fire department, we had several people from Station 21 out there, and the kids were so excited to see all of them and get stickers and things like that. So I also want to thank Steve White with the police department. He volunteered his time almost all day to come out and DJ the event, so that was great. And I just wanted to say welcome back to everybody. We all had a great break and took advantage of a lot of fun things going on in town while we were out. Thanks. Council Member White. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to make a short comment on the management audit. You know, I've consistently been opposed to tax increases for our community because I feel that our local government can be run a lot more cost effectively. And I wanted to commend the Newberry Administration and our fellow council members for proposing and implementing and funding this management audit. As one of Kentucky's most affluent communities, it's always been a paradox to me that our local government always seems to be broke. And I think with adequate amount of study, we should be able to increase our efficiency and maybe save multi-million dollars for the operation of our local government. And I think these savings could be used to provide better service to our taxpayers without increasing taxes. Until we have the management study completed, I'm not planning to vote for any tax increases, with the exception perhaps of fundings related to the EPA consent agreement or in the case of some unexpected emergency. I just wanted to say thanks to my fellow council members and the Mayor. I think this is a wonderful project, and I encourage us to go forward with full speed. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to thank Catherine Warner at LexLink and her team and all of the neighborhood volunteers who made the back-to-school rallies in and around the 2nd District a huge success last Saturday. We had a number of neighborhood volunteers from Radcliffe-Marlboro Neighborhood Association, from Winburn, who worked with the Russell Cave Church of Christ to present their event, the Green Acres Hollow Creek Neighborhood Association, Bracktown Church, the folks in the Georgetown Street Neighborhood Association at Douglas Park, and those at the Carver Center. I had an opportunity to visit all of those sites and to see what a marvelous job they did and how many kids going back to school profited from the work of all of those who gathered and put together and distributed those packs of school supplies. So it was work very well done. A few announcements. At 6 p.m. tonight, there will be a public meeting for residents of the Matador North apartments on Winburn Drive. This is preliminary to a comprehensive inspection by code enforcement. Again, that meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Northside Library on Russell Cave Road, and I encourage all of those who would be concerned in this inspection visit to attend the meeting, get valuable information, and have an opportunity to ask some questions. On Thursday, August 16th, 7.30 p.m., the Spiegel Heights Neighborhood Association will meet at the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church. Folks from our traffic engineering will be there to respond to a number of the neighborhood's concerns, and so I encourage all of the neighborhood to turn out for that meeting. This is a neighborhood association that's being revived and is active and is making some progress. On Monday, August 20th, the Highlands Neighborhood will hold its second emergency preparedness meeting. Representatives from the Red Cross will be on hand. That's at 7 p.m. in the Highlands Park Shelter. The Highlands Neighborhood Association has invited neighbors from Cold Stream and Belmont Farms neighborhoods. I think this is a pretty important initiative to help residents prepare for the kinds of emergencies that we don't much want to look forward to, but are glad we have looked forward to and prepared for them when they occurred. And finally, at 6.30 p.m., also on Monday, August 20th, the Windburn Neighborhood Association will meet at the Martin Luther King Park Shelter. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few things. First of all, I had a constituent that was watching earlier today and sent an e-mail in to talk about that she would like to see the campgrounds at the horse park improved as well, so if we can get to Mary and Jack Kelly to be sure that those participants or people that would like to spectate at the 2010 games that people will ride their campers in, some local folks, and camp out. So I wanted to pass that information along. Also, we had a presentation a few weeks ago, yeah, I guess a few weeks ago, a month or so ago from the Kentucky Department of Transportation or someone regarding the state roads, and I just wanted to say that on Winchester Road there's a If anybody travels Winchester Road and sees Brown Avenue, it's by a car rental place. There is a little street which doesn't have another exit, and when you come out of that street, you can make a left onto Winchester Road, and if you've ever driven there and you see a traffic accident, it's probably at that intersection. Just start paying attention to that and watch that. I actually saw it in an accident there myself, and we've been having difficulty getting a light at that intersection, so pay particular attention to that and send in all your letters of support for a stoplight to be designated in that area. Also, any council members that have not submitted their street repaving list, please do so as quickly as possible. All of our lists are being held up because your lists were not submitted, so please do that as soon as possible. The William Wells Brown Neighborhood Association will meet on Thursday, August the 16th at 630 at the Brenda Cowan Center, and tonight the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association will meet at 7 o'clock at the Living Arts and Science Center. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mayor. Commissioner Kelly, will you take a look at that intersection off Winchester Road and Brown Avenue? Is that correct? Yes, Mayor, that's correct. Thank you very much. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor, and welcome back. Welcome back to my colleagues as well. I've got a few things on my report today. One, I wanted, as Commissioner Kelly comes down, to get an update on the Saran Drive road opening project. He's on his way up. And one of the reasons I'm asking for this is because I've been getting some calls and different correspondence with people that are seemingly some confusion about whether or not the Council's previous vote would open the way for the government to go ahead and open that road or if there's some other vote that we have to do to make that happen. And so, one, I want to get clarity on that and then just find out where they're at in the process. Status as of today, we're preparing final design plans on it. It should be completed next week. Following that, we're ready to go to contract with the contractor that we already have under contract on a unit price basis to do the work, which will probably be about the 1st of September. Estimate that it will take about 75 days from notice to proceed. So we're looking at probably around Thanksgiving of completion of the project. And estimated cost is about $150,000 on that. Okay. Thank you. And I have one other thing for you. I've been trying to get a no outlet sign put up in my district for about a month. I know the work order has been placed. I believe it's Golf Course Court. And if I could get with you later on and get an update on where we're at in that process, I appreciate it. Okay. Council Member Stennett has a question about the Saran Drive project, so we might. You just mentioned that this project does not have to go out to bid and be bid. What's the difference in this project and other projects that we see have to go out to bid? I'm just curious on that point of it. For this particular project, this type of project, we have contracts with contractors on a unit price basis. It's a simple project. Do we look at dollar amount of the project, or is that how we determine whether we go out to bid for a new bid or use an in-house contract? It depends on the complexity of the project, really, more than that. Okay. If it were a large project, yes. Like Starship Parkway, we have to go out to bid? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. Any other questions on the Saran Drive matter? Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Kelly. Thank you, Commissioner. Second, I would like to, and I'm not sure if we want to put this into a committee, or that's probably the best way to handle it. The issue is we have several boards and commissions that have been either created after the Ethics Act was created, or their scope and focus has changed since that time. And I think that we need to look at which boards and commissions that we currently have that need to be submitted underneath the Ethics Act. And I don't know if we want to put that into InterGov, or if we want to handle this with the ongoing issues that we talked about with our boards and commissions and the task force to deal with the whole issue. As I recall, we referred to one of the committees, had a review of all the boards and commissions to see what was necessary and what might be eliminated. It would make some sense to me to keep all of that in the same place. I'm not sure if we actually referred that to a committee or not. Did we do that? Did we do InterGov, Ms. Gorton? I'm thinking we put it in Intergovernmental, but I'm not 100 percent sure. Okay. Okay. So then I would like to move that we would also add to that discussion at InterGov a look at which of these boards and commissions should be subject to the Ethics Act. So moved. If I understood the motion correctly, we want to add to the work of the Intergovernmental Committee a review of all the boards and commissions to see which ones should be subject to the Ethics? Yes. Their membership. The Ethics Act ordinance. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. I'm sorry. Forgive me. Okay. Yeah. You can still vote. Anyone wish to change their vote? Clerk can take the vote. Appears to have passed. Thank you, Mayor. And while we're talking with our technology here for just a minute, you know, the tradition, at least since I've been here, has been to kind of go around the circle and do the council reports. I suppose one way we could do this is just to have everybody wish to speak and then go down the list in the order they come up. Does that work? Okay. Well, today we'll finish out. One last time for old times' sake, you know, Council Member Blevins. I'm not finished with my report yet. I'm sorry. I apologize. Not trying to cut you off. The next issue, we've got two neighborhood association meetings tonight at 7 o'clock. One is the Center Parkway Neighborhood Association, and they meet at St. John's Church, which is adjacent to the Gainesville Empowerment Center. And then secondly, the Gainesville Neighborhood Association meets tonight at 7 o'clock at the Tate Creek Golf Course. And I will be attending both of those meetings somehow because we've had some incidents in the neighborhood and in the district. One in particular was a shooting that took place this past Saturday night. And I don't know how the news media gets their information, but a couple of reports that I saw in the newspaper and on TV said that there was someone walking down the street randomly shooting at people, and that's not the case. It was an incident where there were two victims. All three people were in the car together. They rode up to Lexington from Louisville together, and then something happened, and then there was the shooting. But it's not a random act of violence in a sense that the media reported it, and I want to make that clear. But I also have something that's been passed around. It's called eWatch. I think I brought this up several months ago, maybe a year ago, but I want to revisit this. It's a system that's out in the city of San Diego. It's relatively inexpensive to put together, and the police department has a website that's set up where citizens can subscribe to this service. And if an incident happened in the district, you can actually put perimeters on this program, say a half a mile from your address. And then when that incident happened on Saturday night, then everyone who was subscribed to this service that lived in that half-mile radius could either get an e-mail to their home e-mail account or a text message to their cell phone that alerted them that this activity had taken place. And I think this is a very good service. We need to look at how much it would cost to do this here, but I think it would be relatively inexpensive. It's just a software application and maybe a person, obviously, to update the system. But I passed out a handout to all the council members, and I have more available. And I'd like to – I don't know if we need to put this in the committee or if we can just ask the administration to look into this and see what it would cost to implement it. Commissioner Bennett and I had a little bit of a conversation about this in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech incident, but I think we'd be glad to take a look at it and get back with you with some evaluations. If I could prevail upon Commissioner Bennett to get with you afterwards and get the specific software vendor that you're talking about, we'll take a look at that. Okay. I'd rather do it that way than committee because I think we could be more efficient with it. Yeah. If your administration handles it. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, and that ends my report. Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. I really have no report, but I did want to pass along my thanks and congratulations to Ms. Lamb over here for our beautiful new voting system. I know we're still having some hiccups, but so far it's going pretty well, I think. And I know she's put a lot of work into it and effort, and I wanted to say thanks publicly. That's the end of my report. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I've got a couple of things. First, I need to ask Charlie Martin if he could come up, please. Charlie, last night I had some phone calls on the odor problem coming from Town Branch. Could you tell us what happened there and has it been fixed or what has caused this one to go on? It's my understanding that it has been repaired. What I got reported this morning, I got the call right after you called last night, and that essentially what we have is an air handling problem on the odor control unit there on the screw pumps. The analogy I would have is that you had a partially clogged chimney while you were burning a fire, and so all the odor that was supposed to go through the unit didn't make it through the unit because of the air handling problem. I will ask you this. When did the calls really start originating? Did they start early in the evening or closer to dark? My calls were coming around 6.30. That's surprising to me because I was there until 7 and didn't notice it. So, no, I'll know tonight because I'll probably be there after 7 tonight, and I'll go make sure I drive over to that unit and double check it before I leave there tonight. But it's my understanding as of this morning they had identified the problem and taken corrective action. So this is not going to be an ongoing situation. It's just something unique that's happened a while. I certainly hope not. Honestly, I felt like the odor situation at Town Branch has been much improved this year, and we're under new supervision there, and the change of management has initiated some process controls that I think had a positive impact on the overall odor situation. And judging that I haven't heard from Mr. Blues very often here this summer, I think that that was an indicator that it was successful. Unfortunately, I think I bragged to somebody about that just the other day, and lo and behold, we had an unfortunate incident last night, and I apologize for that. Hang on just a second. I think Council Member Myers may have had a question. Thank you, Mayor. I was in touch with someone who works for a company that says that they can chemically treat this issue at a relatively inexpensive cost, and I think that they've had conversations in the past. I don't have their business card with me, so I don't remember what the name of the company is, but I will get that information to you and see if we can look at that. We'll take a look at that. We've looked at a whole plethora of different odor control chemical addition situations. They are successful at high ends, but as you start getting at lower and lower concentrations, you get into a diminishing returns type of situation. But it's an always evolving technology, and I'd be happy to look at any other alternatives. Okay. Thank you. The other issue that we had over the weekend, and I believe Councilman June Beard will probably get a little bit more detail, but metal brooks, a concern to me is, and I grew up playing, learned golf on a Par 3 golf course, and to me it's not just for kids, it's also for senior citizens, and it's hard for these senior citizens, a lot of them, to walk a regulated golf course, and this is, I hate to see that the metal brook is leaving us, and I hope there's any way that you all can save it. And the thing that concerns me is, I went off to council for a few years back in 2000. There was a deal cut before I left that we gave some property to Tates Creek High School, a couple acres or something, and then from my knowledge, that you all cut a deal that we could buy this property for $750,000. And why has that negotiation stopped? I'm not blaming your administration, I think it was the previous administration, but why isn't that still in the playing field? If we cut a deal and traded the property back a few years ago and gave that property to the school, and this deal was still for $750,000, and why we couldn't continue to negotiate with this deal and buy this property for $750,000? I imagine Dr. Stevens was in on this, and he could probably give you a little history. I don't, because I remember it was $750,000 exactly for this piece of property, and now you want $2,500,000. And why we can't continue, and we did give some property to Tates Creek, and if we end up not getting this Meadowbrook deal, are we going to go back to the school and ask for some kind of deal on that piece of property that we gave away? We took a pretty hard look at that original transaction back earlier in the year, and Commissioner Askew may be able to shed a little bit of light on that transaction. I think the short answer is it was our conclusion, and it was also the school board's position, that while we did have an agreement some time ago when the property was transferred to Tates Creek, the obligation that the school board had to sell us that property for the lower price was terminated. And I'll turn it over to Mr. Askew and let him elaborate on that just a little bit. That is correct, and that is what the school board's position is, is that we did not follow through with the purchase of Meadowbrook, even though we did close the deal on the Tates Creek property. I think there's some difference of opinion about whether we followed through or just exactly why the deal fell through, but when we got involved in it, it was apparent that the school board would sell the property to us only for the appraised value. Let me ask you a question on that. When we cut the deal back a few years ago for that piece of property on Tates Creek High School, or whatever we gave to them, was there a deal that we were going to lower that price as long as they lower their price so we can compromise, unless you have it for this price, if you let us have Meadowbrook for this price? Council Member Maloney, I'm not sure about that. I do know that we have a file on it. I reviewed that file. I don't recall that being in there. It may very well have been. And I'd be more than happy to share that with you once we re-review the file. Well, if it is, I mean, if it did happen, and it concerns me that we sold a piece of property for well under what it's a value, because we had intent to buy this golf course for under what it's a value, and then they turn around, well, I don't know what the previous administration, or I wasn't on when the deal was, I went right off when this deal was cut back in 2000, was it 2001, 2002, I believe. It's been a while ago, and I really don't know who was involved in the negotiation of it. Well, I believe it was 2000, right when I went off in 2001, or whenever, or when I got, that deal was cut. And to me, if we end up losing a property that we owe, we could have got a lot more money for. And we're sitting here, and they're raising their price up to almost $200,000, $2 million more. We're close to it. I have serious concerns about that. And I hope that we go back and look and see those files and just make sure that's been, I hope, I hope, the way I'm hoping it's true, then we can keep the deal and we'll get the property for $750,000. But then if it's not true and it is something that we, it's out of our control, I still think there's an opportunity out there. And I think the mayor, and I've already talked to your commissioner of general service about this, that we have been working with Dave Bunnell and the Mary Gilbert Foundation, that there is property out on Veteran Park that we could possibly, instead of paying $2.5 million for this property, we may be able to get, we already own the land, put in a nice golf course, a par three set up, maybe considerable less, and maybe the Larry Gilbert Foundation has raised some money, and we also could put a driving range. And I'm just hoping that you all, that this administration, even though we are going through some tough times right now, but I think there's potential there that we could get this golf course, Larry Gilbert, and if we do have a driving range for these kids, especially after Tiger Woods went in the other day, a lot of kids are starting to want to play golf. A lot of seniors, baby boomers are starting to hit the age where they want to have exercise. And to me, this golf course, the par three, is where you really begin. And I know some of the council members don't play golf, but I think the golf is going to the next level and Tiger Woods has took it to the next level. And I just hope it does not fall through. But I would like to see you go back and see if you can do research on that, that if there was a deal cut that we lower that price under the condition that they lower their price, that I hope then we should go after that and get that golf course for $750,000. But there may be some other council members that have comments on that. I don't remember the history of it, but that's what I have to say on that right now. We'll take a look at that for you. And the other issue, Mayor, that brought to my attention, and I've been on this council going on and off for 20 years, and one of these special events is what we had coming up here at the end of this month. And a lot of folks have always looked forward to that, the appreciation of what the employees do. And I have to admit, the employees do a tremendous job. And one thing that I did mention to your management when I did the report is that our employees usually go to call beyond duty. If you have a private company doing a lot of these, like storm water, sanitary, sewers, they go to a certain point. Our employees go to call beyond that. Because I've had many times in my district where the sewer backs up and them guys are in there working overtime and doing a little bit more than what a private company would do. And that's just not them. It's the police. It's parks and rec. It's everyone in the government that have worked real hard. And I think, I don't know your reason and rationale. I heard it saved you $300,000. To me, I think I don't see that. I think most a lot of these, the numbers I think are a little bit high on that. But I would like to hear your concerns and reason why that you all decided not to do that. Well, I agree with your assessment that a lot of employees go above and beyond, and this really doesn't have anything to do with employee appreciation. In fact, when we sent the email out last week, we requested their input about another way of doing it. But we've been dealing with a picnic and with a half day off. Now, you all set the policies about what the holidays are for LFUCG. And Friday afternoon before Labor Day is not one of the days that's been identified as a Labor Day, as a holiday for LFUCG. If you want to do that, that's entirely within your all's prerogative. And, you know, I'm sure very few employees will object to that. But right now, the holidays for LFUCG don't include Friday afternoon before Labor Day, and therefore people ought to show up for work. The picnic issue is a little different. I kind of view it as all one big event. But if you want to look at them separately, the picnic started out a few years ago, as I understand it, as an event that was paid for with the profits from the concessions that the employees ran. And over time, that concession got contracted out and the profits went away, and now it's being paid for with tax dollars. And somehow or another, it went from a picnic to a steak cookout deal. So it just seemed to me to be a good time to stop the whole process, reevaluate, and maybe do something that made a little more sense in terms of an employee appreciation event, and that's what the email requested people give some feedback on. My biggest concern, though, is giving 3,500 employees a half-day vacation or holiday is a pretty expensive proposition for this entity as a whole and for the taxpayers who ultimately wind up paying the bill. To the degree people have made vacation plans, we've also requested their supervisors be accommodating in that regard, but people have accumulated vacation time and they can use it to go on that particular day. So both the cost and the fact that you all have not designated that as an urban county government holiday, it seemed to me that if we're going to do, if we're going to abide by the council's policies, everybody needs to be at work. Well, I appreciate your answer there, Mary. Now, the picnic, I did not know that this was a private fund. I mean, the city employees did it, and I can understand that. They used to. And as far as I'm concerned, if the city employees are running the concession to make a profit, they can have steak for the entree and baked Alaskan for dessert. But when we get to a point where tax dollars are being used to underwrite it, then I think we need to reevaluate how we proceed. And I don't, the other thing is, on that half day, I really, I mean, I know a lot of folks look for that, and especially being that close to Labor Day, a lot of employees, especially when I was around the picnic, it ended up being that the employees ended up going out with employees that afternoon. They may go fishing. They may plan to go to, I mean, Gatlinburg, I knew a lot of them that did that. And they just really got around, and it was kind of a motivating appreciation for employees. And I ask you, and I know that some of the council members haven't been here long enough to know how they didn't get to see it last year or a few years, but I do ask that, I just can't see taking something like that away that's been going on for 20 years, especially a half day. And it's something, and I understand that the council needs to make a policy on that. Maybe we ought to look into, it may be not the Labor Day, I mean, that weekend, but I know on Christmas Eve we have a half a day there, and just about 90% of employees take that day off, as it is. It's a dead thing here, and I'm just wondering maybe we compromise by giving them all of Christmas Eve off, the tradeoff to keep these employees. I mean, that, to me, is another option that we can look at. I mean, even though this, I still think, I would have seen it maybe next year, came back to this council and said, we can't do the Labor Day because of this, this, this. But to do it three weeks before, it kind of concerns me, and when a lot of these employees have already set something up. And if this council, this body here, does not want to give them a half day that day, which I still think we should because, and maybe next year we go back and evaluate and say, now, well, your concerns are right, and maybe the council may say, instead of doing the Labor Day that weekend, we may just give you Christmas because if you all, anybody who's been around here Christmas, it's a ghost town, especially on Christmas Eve. And that's something that I'm willing to have other councilmen, if they want to comment on it. But to me, I understand the picnic, if you want to, but I really think we should go on and at least let them have this half day off because a lot of them have already prepared for it. And so I make a motion that we continue to go on this year, that they have the half a day Labor Day off, and then the mayor and administration come back and meet with the council if we decide that this is not a good day to use it anymore, and we may want to not use it and then may look at other options, maybe Christmas Day or something next year. And I so move. Second. The question I've got about that is whether it is in order to amend an ordinance by motion like that. As I recall, there is an ordinance established in the holidays, is there not? There is. It's in the Code of Ordinances, just like the leave time is scheduled in the Code of Ordinances. Presently, you have nine and a half holidays, and you also have 16 hours of holiday time that can be used any way an employee wants each fiscal year. So what you need to do would be to go ahead and amend the Code of Ordinances to allow for this half day holiday, but we can have something prepared if you want to go ahead and act on that Thursday. So I guess what I'm suggesting is if we want to make that change, what we need to do is change the ordinances, which will require. I was just going to keep the same policy as it is right now. We're not going to make it a holiday. I was just going to make it the same policy that we've had for the last 20 years, and then this year then come back with you guys, with what you've given us information on, then next year we can decide if we wanted to cancel the whole maybe to dedicate that we won't do this next year or make it another day like Christmas Eve or something like that. Mayor, the only problem I see is that the council has established all of the, you know, all of the leave time, it's all set out in the ordinance along with holiday time in terms of comp time, sick days. All of those things are set out by ordinance. So I guess if you wanted to do something one time only, we'd probably have to, probably appropriate to do it by ordinance. But, again, if, you know, you tell us what you want and we'll try to get it ready for you to act on. I think the only way that's appropriate to proceed is by amending the ordinance to do that. Now, if that's what you all want to do, I'm perfectly content to do that, but I think it's got to be by way of an amendment to the ordinance. Because otherwise it is problematic in terms of are we obligated to give time and a half off to people that, or time and a half or double time or something to people who are working. It's a very confusing situation otherwise. I understand it's confusing, but how do we get away with it for the last 20 years? I want to do the same thing we've been doing for the last 20 years. I think there has been a consistent effort to just disregard the ordinance. And I don't think that's appropriate, you know. I just don't. I mean, that's what those things are put in the books for. And if they need to be changed, then let's change them. I mean, they're not written in stone. They're not, they didn't come down from the mountaintop. So if you want to change them, let's change them. But just my job is to enforce the rules you all make. And so my ruling as chair is going to be that that motion isn't in order because it can't have the desired effect. If you wish to make a motion to amend the ordinance and put it on the docket for Thursday, we can do that and get the folks in the Department of Law to crank up something. Is a table in order? Parliamentary, is it? No. Because you've ruled. There's no motion. Okay. Mayor? All right. Now, I have several. Yeah. It's the ruling of the chair that motion is not in order because of the impact it has on the ordinance. It would be a motion contrary to the ordinance. But having said that, I don't remember all of it. Well, I understand. And I don't want to make a motion that this is going to be a holiday because I think there needs to be research on that. If we are to make a holiday, then maybe some people want to have Christmas Day off if that's what we decide. Or we may not want it at all. And I'm afraid if I make this motion, this is going to be considered a holiday and this may not be. To me, we haven't done any research. We haven't done any evidence to prove that this is what the employees really want. And that's, to me, I don't want to make something that this council, I don't think, is going to vote for it. So that's why I'm not going to make a motion to make this a holiday. Okay. Mayor, if I might make another comment. Council Member Maloney, you asked how is it that this has been done in the past. And I've raised that same question. And I know one of the responses that I received is that there was some feeling that the mayor of Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government had the inherent authority as the chief executive to go ahead and declare holidays. And I disagree with that. I don't think that's the correct interpretation. I think it is the council's role to establish days of work and it's the mayor's role to implement the rules that you all set, just as the mayor said. But that is the explanation that was given to me before that the mayor could do that. I do think the mayor has some authority when it comes to a situation involving an emergency to take emergency executive action. But this certainly isn't an emergency. And the council has been pretty clear about the days off that employees are going to get. Anything further? Council Member Maloney? Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I do have one question, Logan, on that issue. How have we paid for this in the past couple of years if there hasn't been any concessions to pay for it? Is this the first year there hasn't been actual money to pay for it? Because it's actually a budget problem. If we don't have money budgeted, how would we pay for it? Well, I think Mr. Allen may be able to address that. You snuck it in your budget. Welcome back, Council Member. It's always a pleasure. Actually, I think one thing that the council should remember is that over 50% of our employee population is exempt. So, exempt employees we would pay anyway. So, the four hours that would be allocated to the salary group, which is the lion's share of the dollars of our payroll. However, to the mayor's point before, this is a productivity issue because those four hours, instead of using it for a holiday, you know, go into the proverbial bucket. So, they would be used. So, the real dollars are only for the non-exempt employees. But how do we pay for the actual event itself? That was a budgeted amount. It was in the mayor's office as a line item. And then last year, Human Resources inherited it. And I had it for last year. And then it was cut from the budget this year. Okay. So, it's not even in the budget. Even if we wanted to do it, there's no money per se budgeted to do it. For the picnic. That's correct. I have to believe Council Member Maloney. I'll yield a second to him. He has a question for Mr. Allen. Is that okay, Mayor? So, you put this in the budget this year and it was cut? That is correct. Can I ask a question? Why was that cut? I mean, I mean. Frankly, I don't recall that particular conversation. Does anybody else? When it was cut? Yeah. Why was it cut? We were asked to submit. I think part of the issue, Council, was that the budget rolled back to the 2007 level. Well, the 2007 level was really the 2005 level. And because it was not in my budget in 2005, as it only moved from the Mayor's office to my budget in 2007, it didn't show up. I didn't recall us having any explicit conversation about whether that item was or wasn't going to be included in the budget. It wasn't a line item, but it could have been discussed and said we're going to cut it out. No. It was grouped. It was in another group. Okay. But it wasn't offered up. Thank you, Mr. Allen. I appreciate your explanation on that. And, Mayor, when do you anticipate a new plan or new employee appreciation hour? Are you all trying to do that within the next 30 days, coming up with a new idea? I don't know what kind of response you're getting from the employees on what they want, but when do we expect something to? I don't think we put a particular date in the memo that we circulated. We just generally ask for people to express their thoughts about what might be an appropriate employee appreciation event. And I would imagine we're going to get all the input we're going to get within the next couple of weeks or so, and then we ought to be able to make a decision within a month. Okay. That's a reasonable time frame. Perfect. Thank you. You know, we learned a lot of things over break that we can share with our constituents. One is we're on live webcam now, which is great, being over the Internet, the live stream, and I want to welcome everyone watching on that because that's a first for Lexington. I know a lot of people are looking forward to that in their offices to keep up with local government. You learned a lot about fire hydrants, too, during our break. You noticed throughout our community we have different color fire hydrants out there, and I asked the fire department to give each council member a little color code sheet so you know exactly what each fire hydrant color means. I know I got several calls, one being that they had the wrong fire hydrant color in front of their house because they weren't in the Bryan Station District, they were in the Henry Clay District, and they are not coded to your school district. They are not coded to your university, whether it be Louisville or UK. These are international codes, and I know, Chief, if you wanted to say anything on those or not, we're adopting a new standard, an international standard of colors, so that our firefighters know when they pull up to a scene what size hose to use, what kind of fire hydrant, whether it be private, commercial, whatever it may be. I think that's a safety issue, and I'm glad to see us finally get on the same page throughout the city. I know there's folks that want to go back out there and repaint their fire hydrants, and I want to be clear that that's not their property to paint that fire hydrant, correct? That is? That's correct. They're owned by either Kentucky American Water or perhaps the apartment complex or the industry that they may be near. And this is a safety issue. I assume now it will speed up some of the response time as they get off the truck, and also the ability to spot those fire hydrants. The idea is, one, to be able to identify them easily and see them. That's why the chrome barrel is on the bulk of the hydrants, and that's so that they can be seen from a distance and so on. The actual color coding of the bonnet and the caps is related to the amount of water that they flow in 500-gallon increments. And this is extremely useful to the company officers as they approach the scene to know whether their hydrant is appropriate for the use in putting out the specific type of fire that they have. The red barrel hydrants are privately owned fire hydrants, meaning that they may be owned by, as I said, perhaps an apartment complex or an industrial or commercial facility or user, but the bonnet caps still indicate the amount of water flow that they provide. Chief, thank you, but I just wanted to make sure council and the public knew exactly. We didn't just go out and say, hey, we like green and yellow or we like blue and yellow. These are our code, and we're trying to make it safer for our residents and our community. I also had the pleasure of riding with one of our engine companies and experienced a lot of good things over the break riding with our fire folks. I can say without a doubt that we have top-rated firemen in Lexington, without a doubt. It was just a very enjoyable experience and a good learning experience for me, and if any councilman gets an opportunity to do it, I would really encourage it. And also, I know a lot of people have waited a long time for the Liberty Road project, and it's underway. If you've driven down Liberty Road lately, it looks a lot different now between New Circle and Man o' War. I want to thank three people who got pretty much the blunt of the whole project as we hurried the last couple of years to get this project underway. A lot of pressure was put on them, and they've responded. They've met their deadlines, and I want to thank them, too. They're in our Department of Engineering for coming through for us, and that's Lay Carr, Bob Barrett, and Keith Loven. Those gentlemen have been quizzed. They've been asked dozens of questions. They've been in front of this council, in front of the State Transportation Cabinet, and they've done a tremendous job getting this project underway, and hopefully by August 1st of 2008, we will be opening up a new road there in the Liberty Road corridor. And last but not least, I have one item I'd like to put into the Budget and Finance Committee. It has to do with streetlights and the private streetlights where neighborhoods are actually paying not only the property tax for those streetlights, but also 2KU for the maintenance of those streetlights. So, basically, they're paying double for their streetlights. I met with the Department of Revenue back in the spring and discussed the situation. I want to go ahead and put it into committee to take a hard look at some of these neighborhoods that have had them for 20-plus years now and to see if there's a way to do a tax relief for them going forward, because they have technically paid back the city for our original investment in those streetlights. So I'd like to place that issue into Budget and Finance Committee. So moved. Any discussion? What am I supposed to do? It doesn't work. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote yes. It doesn't work. Those opposed, vote no. The motion carries. All right. All right. Anything further? One last thing. I want to thank Fayette County Public Schools, especially the staff at Brown Station High School. The parking lot that we've dealt with parking issues the last six months was not supposed to be open the first day of school, and they put forth an extra effort the last three weeks to get that parking lot open. The residents have been very, very patient around that high school, and I thank the school system for getting that parking lot open and getting those kids a place to park. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. A couple of things. Yesterday was a great day in Lexington for a couple of reasons. Congressman Chandler had the opportunity to hold a press conference with the Mayor and the Vice Mayor and a couple of folks from council and community leaders to announce $500,000 that he had put into a bill that has gone through the House and is, of course, waiting to go through the Senate and has to pass a presidential veto and so forth. But Congressman Chandler had earmarked this money for a lot of the planning and the study that needs to go into our downtown and a number of critical areas, and I applaud his efforts and appreciate him championing Lexington. A couple of other things that happened during the break. One, I want to send congratulations out to the Cal Ripken 12-year-olds of the South Lexington League in Shiltoe Park as they were undefeated in the Ohio Valley Conference and moved on to the World Series in Arkansas where they are currently. I also want to send out my congratulations to the Dunbar Blazing Bearcats. Eleven members of this track team qualified for the National Junior Olympic Games to be held July 25th through August 4th in Knoxville, Tennessee. And these folks, 11 folks from this team, took in medals from first to fourth place, and my congratulations go out to them and their coach. Also, during the break, the press release came out and the news was announced that Chief Beatty is stepping down as our police chief here at LFUCG to take the job at UK, and I just want to say personally thank you for your efforts and energies, Chief Beatty, and thank you for your service to this community, and we certainly appreciate your professionalism and the job that you've done and will continue to do until you take that position. I also want to thank Director Ron Bishop at our community corrections facility. A while back, Director Bishop spearheaded the initiative for inmate cleanup and using inmates to clean up trash around the town, and we have benefited from that in the Ninth District multiple times, and he gets calls frequently, and I would encourage you, as other council members, to take advantage of that opportunity. A couple last things. One is there's been a tremendous amount of paving that's gone on in our city, tens of millions of dollars of investment that has come from Frankfurt, and I want to thank Governor Fletcher and the Transportation Cabinet for that, and also very appreciative in the Ninth District, as we've had just over the last two years, all of Man o' War paved in the Ninth District section from Nicholsville Road over to Harrisburg Road, and I appreciate the constituents of the Ninth District dealing with all the construction that's going around our district and, of course, around the city, and Clays Mill Road will be in a state of construction and confusion probably for the next 18 months or so, and, again, I want to say I appreciate the folks who live up and down that corridor dealing with that as we are moving the infrastructure of our city forward in the Ninth District. Clays Mill Road is one of those places that sees a lot of that. And lastly, Mayor, I just wanted to bring to your attention two things. One is just from I received a request from a constituent where we had had a speed reduction in the neighborhood, and he wasn't necessarily opposed to the speed reduction, but there seems to be kind of a disconnect between when we do things and letting folks know how we're going to do it, and I know we've heard in zone changes and other things that, hey, we just heard about this and so forth. I would just ask that as we move through this management audit that you kind of take a look at and I guess give emphasis to how we communicate when something's going to change. We seem to get folks who get caught off guard by speed changes, and the first time they find out is when the police car pulls them over, and that's not necessarily the best way to do it. But we'd appreciate anything we can do there and would certainly lend myself to that discussion. And then lastly, I know when we went on break we were talking about the $620,000 that we had put towards economic development at Commerce Lexington, and I believe there were discussions with Joe Kelly about the metrics that would be used, and I've received some stuff from the private sector and would like to kind of combine that with you so that we can, as a council, know how do we hold them accountable to the economic development. But, again, it's good to be back. I welcome everybody back. Thank you. That concludes my report. Let me respond particularly on the communications thing. I think that's a very valid point. One of the things I should have said in the context of the presentation about the management audit is that Commissioner Kimmerer-Cole is going to be the person in our administration that has primary responsibility for the management audit. So, Commissioner Cole, if you would ask the folks from Management Partners to take a look at that communications issue, I would appreciate it. And I'll ask Mr. Kelly if he would work with you on the metrics. You may have seen that Anthony Wright will be joining us, and I expect that Anthony will probably take primary responsibility for that project here short. Council Member Gorton. Thank you, Mayor. I just had one comment, and I wanted to thank Mr. Artie Green. Council members have been, several council members have been discussing the application that is being used for the boards and commissions, and Artie has worked it out. I didn't realize there are actually two boards that require party affiliation, one of which is the cemetery board. I find that kind of humorous. I'm not sure why that is. At any rate, he has worked out a way to change that form so that only those two types of applicants will need to give their party affiliation. So I just wanted to thank you, Mr. Artie Green. The reason that was included is because we have talked a lot about the desirability of having a diverse group of appointments, and we've talked about geographical, we've talked about racial, we've talked about gender diversity. And in my mind, it is not good for us to have 100 percent Democrats or 100 percent Republicans on any of these boards, and that may be inadvertently happening now. I don't know. We don't have access to that information. That was the reason why it was put on there. I'd just make the observation that if we wind up with a board or commission that has a disproportionate representation of Democrats or Republicans or independents, that's something we can't track and prevent. And that was the reason why that was on there in the first place. Because of objections, we'll take it off. But I think we're missing an opportunity to promote some greater diversity on our boards and commissions as a result of the concerns. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on that. My concern was simply that because we are a nonpartisan government, we shouldn't need to know that except on the boards and commissions that really require it. So I appreciate your thoughts. I would argue taking it off those two. You know, if we're going to be nonpartisan, let's be nonpartisan. And, you know, we – it is an effort to try to gain some added insight about – it's trying to be more transparent. I mean, they are what they are right now. I don't know. It's a matter of public record. I suppose we could send somebody to the county clerk's office and find out how all 800 of them are registered and make some kind of analysis. And I expect at some point the paper will come to that conclusion and go through that exercise on a selected number of them and we'll find out we got 92 percent of this or 4 percent of that on any given board. But this one isn't worth fighting over. So we'll make that change. And I would suggest some consideration be given to eliminating the party affiliation requirements on any board or commission. We know of two. There might be others. I don't know. I agree with you 100 percent on that. And so, therefore, I move that while Intergovernmental Committee is looking at the other boards and commissions, we ask them to look at the Cemetery Board and the Ethics Commission and see if we can stop requiring party affiliation. So I move. Any discussion? Yes. I believe the housing, Lexington Housing Authority requires party identification before and that's not based on any rule of the urban county government but on the federal guidelines. And so I think that one needs to be considered also. Of course, it's a matter of public record. If anybody wants to know, you can just look it up. And that tape is available now for $12 if you want to buy it. Well, given that, Dr. Stephens, I'll just amend my motion to include any board or commission that is asking for party affiliation. If we could look at whether we can eliminate that. Thank you. Sounds good. I think we have a second. Any further discussion on that issue? Those in favor, then vote aye. Aye. I guess vote yes. Better way of putting it. We're quicker than electronics and electrons. If you wish to vote no, please do so. Votes being cast, motion went. Wait a minute. All right. Now, here's a good opportunity for learning experience. Does anybody wish to change their vote? I think we're ready to determine that vote. That motion passes. Anything further? No. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. We've got a problem here. I was voting no. And it's not showing up that way. Actually, Mayor, my screen went blank. I think it's knocked me out. I've got the appropriate motion up, but I can't withdraw and I can't say no. Oh, that's a good one. Okay, right. But earlier I voted no. Pretty soon we're going to need a paper trail. Yeah, why don't we do that? Let's delete that vote and let's try again and see if we need all the practice we can get, I think. All right. You just tell us when we're ready. All right. If you are in favor of asking the Intergovernmental Committee to evaluate partisan requirements on boards and commissions and eliminate them where possible, please vote yes. If you oppose, vote no. Let me make sure. I'm wanting to vote consistent with what the Mayor suggested as this being an added method for attribute for determining diversity. So that means I would vote nay. Okay. All right. Okay. You may have voted no. Well, wait just a minute. Let me try to clarify this. We have already agreed we're going to take that off the application simply because it's not worth having a lot of hassle about. So the issue now is do you want the Intergovernmental Committee to take a look at the requirements for boards and commissions and to attempt to eliminate any reference to partisan identification? If you support that, then you should vote yes. If you oppose that, you should vote no. I'm okay with looking at it, but you've already said that you were going to. It's not worth having an argument about. All right. Motion carries. All right. Does that conclude your report now? All right. Council Member Beard. I'm either happy or sorry. I'm not sure that all my thunder was stolen by Council Member Maloney because I was teed up to discuss both Meadowbrook and the picnic. If taken out of the budget after consciously being put in the budget during the budget cycle, why are we finding out about it only three weeks ahead of time? And why are the employees finding out about it only three weeks ahead of time? I think I answered that a few minutes ago. It wasn't consciously taken out of the budget as a line item. We went back to FY2007 funding levels as a general proposition across the board. And as I understand it, in the context of human resources, that meant they went back to what was 2005 levels. And at that stage of the game, there was no funding in their budget for the picnic. So there wasn't any conscious discussion about whether we are or we aren't going to have a picnic. It's just when the number crunching completed when we went back to 2007 levels, it wound up being eliminated. Okay. I am prepared to make a motion right now that we add four hours of discretionary time by ordinance, I guess, Logan, which can be taken at the request. Pardon me? With the approval of the supervisor, obviously, in any case with the discretionary hours. It can be taken at the request of the employee and, again, with the approval of the supervisor. Okay. Currently, the ordinance provides for 16 hours. You want to bump that? I want to add that. Take that to 20, yes. Take that to 20. And you want to the idea would be if this motion passes, we'll have something ready to go Thursday. Right. Okay. Yes, sir. I think the motion is to amend the docket to add an amendment to the ordinance to that effect. That's correct. On this Thursday's meeting. That would come up for a first reading. Is there a second? Got a motion and a second. Any discussion? Then those in favor? Discussion on this? Yes. Okay. So let's confirm. The motion is to add four hours, right, to what we've had is 16 hours so far. You have nine and a half holiday days that are designated. Labor Day, Independence Day, Half Day Christmas, so on. You've got an additional 16 hours that can be used at the discretion of the employee subject to approval of a supervisor. Okay. And so, as I understand, Council Member Beard, you would. Okay. Let me put my comments in context. I appreciate that. What we're talking about here is for some time now that, you know, this council, I think, we've had a good period during which time we have recognized that, you know, micromanagement is not something that's good for us. And one of the reasons for that, perhaps, is that the mayor's done a good job of managing. And while in my own experience, I'll have to say that 15 years or so ago, I had a similar experience in our company where my brothers and I decided that we didn't need to have our company picnic. And those who participated in the company picnic were pretty upset. And those who didn't participate in the company picnic were pretty upset. And so we reflected on it a little bit. And then we decided after a time, especially the next year, that, well, we'd have the company picnic. We'd continue that because it did represent to some extent the culture and institutional values and legacies and so forth that meant a lot to people. At the time we made the decision, we didn't particularly recognize that. And what I'd suggest is that, you know, I'd suggest tabling this right now. I'd make a motion to table it and urge the administration and ask them, you know, to reflect on it a little bit, you know, perhaps in the spirit of summertime and picnics and so forth. And make lemonade out of lemon, but not rush to expanding the hours that have been over time and for more than likely for very good reason determined these additional hours. I mean, I don't feel comfortable voting on this with absent further information that I feel like the mayor would probably need to look into. We have a motion to table. Is there a second? Second. That's not debatable. So the issue now is whether you wish to vote in favor of tabling the motion by Council Member Beard to expand the number of discretionary hours. If you support tabling that, please vote yes. Point of order. Sure. For how long should it be tabled? Is that not or should that not be in the motion? It's not necessary. I mean, you can do that if you wish. And I might add, if you put that in, that portion of the motion to table is debatable, just the duration of the tabling. It would be debatable. Well, you know, it could be tabled for a year then. I mean, and of course, then we don't get anywhere. Yeah. The context of the motion to table, sorry to say, Julian, the context was it was to perhaps just give a little bit of breathing room for looking at it, considering it to the extent that there may be options available in the next couple of days maybe, you know, before the next council meeting. I mean, this is not totally time dependent upon necessarily on the Labor Day weekend situation, because it could happen in October or November or whenever. For that matter, it could happen next May, the four hours, I mean. Okay. We're to the point at which we're ready to vote on the motion to table. Council Member Beard's motion. Let me see. Are we ready to vote? It appears now we're ready to vote. Please vote yes if you support tabling it and vote no if you oppose. That's not what the motion is. This is the motion to table. That's not what's represented on the tube. This is my motion. I understand, and what we're having to do is there's not a method for taking this motion off, and so we're going to table this motion. We're going to fix it over there electronically. So, but if you vote and then we'll. It appears everyone has voted, and the motion to table carries. I didn't get them counted, but there's a nine to six, I believe. Yes. Okay. Anything further? One other thing on the Meadowbrook situation. You know, as you and I have discussed, I think when we took our tour, we were somewhat deficient in the fourth district on green space and parks. We had the situation that we were dealing with or attempting to deal with as far as the Glendover tennis courts were concerned, with some movement toward maybe expanding that as a possibility into more of a park. There were several proposals on the table as what we might do, and then, you know, we knew that this was hanging over our head at some point, that the trigger could be pulled by the Fayette County Public Schools, and we would lose that green space. It is a large percentage of the green space that is available to the fourth district, however. Some of our parks are just remnant parks that are sitting in flood plains. We only have one full-blown park in the whole district. And as I pointed out to Commissioner Cole, there may be some carryover. I'm not used to using the term fund balance where we might be able to work something out to keep that. I guess the second question might be, and Council Member Maloney mentioned that the Larry Gilbert effort, why couldn't that be shifted to Meadowbrook as opposed to Veterans Park, as opposed to building a whole brand-new golf course to deal with an existing one, and upgrading that and let that be the Larry Gilbert venue? And, Richard, I would welcome discussing that with you at some point. I don't want to give up on this, let's put it that way, and won't for a while until such time as I find that we don't have excess fund balance over and above what's estimated, and would like to keep and acquire more green space, not be giving up big chunks of it in the fourth district. The problem, as we discussed during our council tour, was the fact that we don't own Meadowbrook Golf Course. I know. I understand that. And the school board who does own it has made a decision they're prepared to sell it. So that decision having been made, they have an obligation to sell it at fair market value, which they estimate is about $2.4 million. Therefore, and we've got a situation at Meadowbrook where we've been losing, the last year, $68,000 to operate that particular facility. So the difference, the rationale for putting the Larry Gilbert course, as it has been referred to at Veterans Park, is the fact we already own the property and we don't have the acquisition costs on the property. But to build a, not to debate this necessarily, but to build a golf course from scratch with greens and traps and all that is extremely expensive in and of itself. No question about it. No question. And we're in a money-losing proposition where we've been leasing the property for a dollar a year. To acquire the property for $2.3 million, we'd have the interest costs on top of that. So that's where we are. And that's why we opted not to pursue the acquisition of it. I had heard the numbers of what we, you know, much of what we do in parks is a losing proposition anyway. There's no revenue stream for lots of what happens in our parks. Sure. And do other things with. And so the argument about what we make off the golf versus what we lose off golf really doesn't resonate with me. But we've got five other golf courses. I think five. Isn't that right? Five. We had six and we now have five. So there are still public golf course options available. I will grant you that we don't have a par three or won't have a par three when the Meadowbrook operation ceases. But I think the last time I looked at it, we were losing money on three of those and had a little above break-even on a couple of them. So that's where we are. Well, again, you allow me to not agree. Sure. Of course. Thank you. Council Member Stephens. I've played the Meadowbrook golf course on several occasions and it ain't much of a golf course, I'll tell you that. And I don't think we've wasted or spent a whole lot of money on maintenance there because there isn't much to maintain. And I don't think it's a loss as far as a golf course is concerned. And I would much approve the idea that Rich Maloney has of going together with the Larry Gilbert Foundation and see what we can do to make something out of that because that would be a real par three golf course, which will have a driving range and an opportunity to teach kids how to play golf, which we don't have here in Lexington now. I know that Gabe Brewer learned to play golf at Picadome, but we need a better place than that to learn to play for kids. It also would be available for seniors because I hear that some kids go to school and that leaves part of the day free for the seniors. So that was the original idea. I know it's not in your district, but it would add to our community, I think, and would be a good feature. So I would like to move that to the question of the new par three golf course and partnering with the Larry Gilbert Foundation to be referred to the planning committee of the council. The planning committee takes care of parks and things like that to explore the possibilities for that. Any discussion? Those in favor then of referring that item to the planning committee, let it be known. Well, wait a minute. I vote yes. Are we ready to? Oh, whatever committee it's supposed to go to. Okay. Services committee. Services committee. All right. Are we ready? Are we ready to vote? Those in favor of them vote yes. Opposed vote no. Motion carries. All right. Anything further? Council Member Stephens. No, I've got to quit with a unanimous vote. All right. Council Member Ellinger says he has no report. So that takes us down to the mayor's report. And the only items I have are the ones that were previously circulated. Motion would be in order. Move approval. Thank you. Any discussion? Those in favor then vote aye. Opposed no. Motion carries. We have one individual, if I can find the sheet here, who Ms. Stegall, I believe, has indicated a desire to comment generally. Ms. Stegall, if you would give us your full name and address, you'll have three minutes to address the council. Okay. My name is Atheen Stegall. I'm a senior citizen. I've been living in Century Hill. And I've been trying to get help. My neighbors had built a building on my property, hooked onto my fence. I've called code enforcement. I've talked to Charlie Bowen. And nobody's helped. Does any member here have any questions for Ms. Stegall? Could you state the address again, please? 3340 Mount Foraker. I'll talk to you. All right. Thank you. I called down there, and they don't return my calls. Did you say, I'm sorry, who did you say you had called? I called the council office. And I asked for Charlie Bowen, who works there, and he didn't return my calls. Okay. I'll tell you what, Ms. Stegall. If you will check with Commissioner Tim Bennett back there, he's sitting just behind you, then he can take up that issue with folks in code enforcement and try to move it along for you. Thank you. Thank you for coming. Sorry you had to wait. Does anyone else wish to speak to the council? Then I think we have a personnel matter we need to discuss in closed session. Is there a motion? Council Member Blevins. Thank you, Mayor. In agreement to KRS 61.810, Section 1, Section F, for the purpose of discussing an appointment of an individual employee, I move that we go into closed session. I have a motion and second that we go to closed session. Any discussion? Those in favor, please vote aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Closed session. Closed session.