# Committee of the Whole - May 24, 2018 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 24, 2018 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4522 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4522?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2018-05-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 24,867 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on May 24, 2018, at 10:00 AM in the Council Chamber, with the Vice Mayor presiding. The council addressed five agenda items during the session, with a focus on the fiscal year 2019 budget. Four of the five agenda items were approved, including the Public Hearing on the FY2019 Mayor's Proposed Budget, the FY2019 Mayor's Proposed Budget covering revenue, debt, and capital matters, the Mayor's Late Items, and the Council Link Report Out & Recommendations. One item—Individual Council Member Recommendations—was deferred. The council took 23 motions and votes throughout the meeting and heard 1 public comment. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 24, 2018: **Council Members:** - Council Member Farmer - Council Member Lamb - Council Member Maloney - Council Member Massardi - Council Member Plowman - Council Member Stinnett - Council Member Evans - Council Member Bledsoe - Council Member James Brown - Council Member Worley - Council Member Gibbs - Council Member Smith **Staff and Other Attendees:** - Commissioner - CAO Hamilton - Bill O'Mara - Jeff Neal - Susan Pluger - Teresa Grider - Roger Mulvaney No council members or attendees were recorded as absent or arriving late. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included 23 votes on budget amendments, personnel changes, and capital projects. **Budget and Financial Motions** Four voice votes passed on budget matters: adoption of FY2019 Revenue and Budget Projections [timestamp: 0:16:18]; approval of general fund amendments reducing revenue by $59,400, reducing expenses by $38,500, and increasing expenses by $1,368 [timestamp: 0:18:27]; approval of a $117,342 reduction in the Water Quality Management Fund to correct salary double-counting [timestamp: 0:19:35]; and approval to change the prisoner account fund number from 4203 to 5062 to comply with new GASB rules [timestamp: 0:20:37]. **Personnel and Staffing** A roll call vote passed 12-0 to create a part-time ADA coordinator position in Building Inspection and reallocate $34,000 from Facilities and Fleet Management professional services, with all council members voting in favor [timestamp: 0:45:26]. An electronic vote passed 12-0 to abolish Council Staff Specialist and Security Officer positions to fund a Deputy Coroner position [timestamp: 1:01:09]. **Capital Projects and Funding** A motion to include $54,000 for design of a splash pad and playground at Charles Young Park from the Public Parking Fund failed [timestamp: 0:47:37]. A motion to fund $600,000 for a K-9 facility from the Public Parking Corporation failed 11-1, with Council Member Smith voting against [timestamp: 1:37:45]. An amendment to bond $600,000 for the K-9 facility and use $300,000 from the Public Parking Fund also failed 11-1 [timestamp: 2:06:17]. The K-9 facility item was subsequently tabled and made item 38, passing 12-0 [timestamp: 2:10:11]. **Other Approved Motions** Voice votes passed to increase the sidewalk assistance fund by $20,000 [timestamp: 0:46:32]; place Explorium bubble room renovation on the fund balance discussion agenda [timestamp: 0:49:26]; fund $4,800 for Human Rights Commission ADA caseload increase [timestamp: 1:14:23]; fund $6,620 for animal care and control radio upgrade [timestamp: 1:20:29]; and fund $43,000 for mowers for corrections [timestamp: 1:21:34]. Electronic votes passed to fund the PVA office software upgrade [timestamp: 1:19:27]; fund workforce development grants from existing fund balance [timestamp: 1:07:04]; allocate $55,000 for the Hazardous Street Tree Cost Share Program [timestamp: 2:18:12]; allocate $30,000 for government fiber optic network maintenance [timestamp: 2:22:06]; reappropriate an associate traffic engineer position [timestamp: 2:40:57]; and fund $117,000 for buffered bike lanes using $58,500 from the MAP fund and $58,500 from the coal severance fund [timestamp: 2:49:06]. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting approved the following financial actions: **Appropriations** * $34,000 appropriation to create a part-time ADA coordinator position in Building Inspection * $20,000 appropriation to increase the sidewalk assistance fund in Code Enforcement **Grants** * $54,000 grant to fund design of a splash pad and playground at Charles Young Park, awarded to Public Parking Corporation * $4,800 grant to the Human Rights Commission for ADA caseload increase * $55,000 grant to Environmental Services for the Hazardous Street Tree Cost Share Program * $117,000 grant to Environmental Quality and Public Works for buffered bike lanes on Alexandria, Pasadena, Malibu, and Redding Road **Purchases** * $30,000 for PVA Office software upgrade * $6,620 for Animal Care and Control radio upgrade * $43,000 for mowers for Corrections **Contracts** * $30,000 contract for maintenance of government fiber optic network infrastructure The total financial actions approved amounted to $410,420 across appropriations, grants, purchases, and contracts spanning multiple city departments and services. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 08:35] Jim Frazier, chairman of the Lexington Parking Authority, addressed the council regarding the Parking Authority's fund balance and financial needs. Frazier noted that $648,000 remains in fund 4161 following a prior oversight and requested that the council consider the Parking Authority's funding requirements. He emphasized that the authority is not in a strong cash position and highlighted that revenue losses resulting from a land swap have negatively impacted the authority's operations. ## Contested Items The May 24, 2018 meeting included three contentious matters that generated significant debate among council members. **Funding for K-9 Facility** The council considered a proposal to fund a $600,000 K-9 facility using the Public Parking Fund. The initial motion to approve this funding was defeated. Council members then attempted an alternative approach, proposing to bond half the cost ($300,000) while drawing the remaining half from the Public Parking Fund. This compromise motion also failed to pass. Due to the lack of consensus, the item was tabled for reconsideration at the June 5 meeting. **Use of Public Parking Fund** The K-9 facility proposal sparked heated discussion regarding the appropriate use of the Public Parking Fund. Multiple council members expressed concerns about depleting these funds, emphasizing the Public Parking Corporation's reliance on them and the importance of preserving resources for future parking-related projects. This disagreement over fund allocation was central to the defeat of both funding proposals for the K-9 facility. **Funding for Associate Traffic Engineer Position** The council debated a motion to reappropriate funds for an associate traffic engineer position. An amendment was introduced that redirected funds from a prior budget item to support this position. The amended motion ultimately passed. However, the discussion revealed underlying concerns among council members about recurring costs and the strain on the overall budget. The need to reallocate funds from other areas to accommodate this position highlighted budget constraints the council was facing. ## Public Hearing FY2019 Mayor's Proposed Budget A public hearing was held on May 24, 2018, to consider the Mayor's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019. [timestamp: 0:07:33] The Vice Mayor presided over the hearing. No public comments were submitted or made during the hearing period. The hearing was subsequently closed. The proposed budget was approved. ## FY2019 Mayor's Proposed Budget: Revenue, Debt & Capital [timestamp: 00:13:59] The committee reviewed the FY2019 revenue projections during this agenda item. The proposed budget identified a $6.2 million shortfall in projected revenues. Following discussion of the revenue and debt projections, the committee affirmed the proposed figures as presented. The committee subsequently approved the FY2019 Mayor's Proposed Budget for revenue, debt, and capital. **Outcome:** Approved ## Mayor's Late Items The committee approved four late items during this agenda section. [timestamp: 00:16:53] **Approved Items:** - A $59,400 revenue reduction for parks - A $38,500 expense reduction for the Explorium - A $1,368 expense increase for the county judge executive salary - A change to fund numbers for the prisoner account fund A Commissioner participated in the discussion of these items. The committee voted to approve all four late additions to the agenda. ## Council Link Report Out & Recommendations The Council Link report was presented at approximately [timestamp: 21:10], covering recommendations from five committee areas: General Services & Planning, Finance & Social Services, General Government, Public Safety, and Environmental Quality & Public Works. **Key Speakers** Council Member Farmer, Council Member Armstrong, and Council Member Evans participated in the discussion. **Recommendations Approved** The council approved several recommendations from the report, including: - Funding for an ADA coordinator - Sidewalk assistance funding - A splash pad **Outcome** The recommendations were approved by the council. ## Individual Council Member Recommendations [timestamp: 2:49:41] The meeting concluded with a discussion of individual council member recommendations. Council Member Farmer and Council Member Lamb participated in this agenda item. The committee agreed to reconvene on June 5 to finalize all recommendations. During this discussion, the committee indicated it would reconsider the K-9 facility funding as part of the broader recommendation process. **Outcome:** This agenda item was deferred, with the full consideration of individual council member recommendations scheduled for the June 5 meeting. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Adopt FY2019 Revenue and Budget Projections - **Motion** — passed: Approve amendments to the general fund: reduce revenue by $59,400, reduce expense by $38,500, increase expense by $1,368 - **Motion** — passed: Approve reduction of $117,342 in Water Quality Management Fund to correct salary double-counting - **Motion** — passed: Approve change of fund number from 4203 to 5062 for prisoner account fund to comply with new GASB rules - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Create part-time ADA coordinator position in Building Inspection and reallocate $34,000 from Facilities and Fleet Management professional services - **Motion** — passed: Increase sidewalk assistance fund by $20,000 and decrease professional services fund in Code Enforcement by $20,000 - **Motion** — failed: Include $54,000 for design of splash pad and playground at Charles Young Park from Public Parking Fund 4161 - **Motion** — passed: Place Explorium renovation of bubble room on top of fund balance discussion agenda - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Abolish Council Staff Specialist and Security Officer positions to fund Deputy Coroner position - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Fund 10% reduction in Workforce Development Grants using Public Parking Fund - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Amend motion to fund Workforce Development Grants from existing fund balance instead of Public Parking Fund - **Motion** — failed (11-1): Motion to take number 16 (Canine Facility) out of order and place next on agenda - **Motion** — passed: Fund $4,800 for Human Rights Commission ADA caseload increase from unused balance in Facilities and Fleet Management professional services - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Fund PVA office software upgrade from remaining Public Parking Fund - **Motion** — passed: Fund $6,620 for animal care and control radio upgrade from general fund - **Motion** — passed: Fund $43,000 for mowers for corrections from public safety fund - **Motion** — failed (11-1): Fund $600,000 for K-9 facility from Public Parking Corporation - **Motion** — failed (11-1): Amend motion to bond $600,000 for K-9 facility and use $300,000 from Public Parking Fund - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Table item 16 (K-9 facility) and make it item 38 - **Motion** — passed: Take $55,000 from fund balance for Hazardous Street Tree Cost Share Program - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Take $30,000 from fund balance for maintenance of government fiber optic network - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Reappropriate associate traffic engineer position in neighborhood traffic management section - **Motion** — passed (12-0): Fund $117,000 for buffered bike lanes on Alexandria, Pasadena, Malibu, and Redding Road using $58,500 from MAP fund and $58,500 from coal severance fund --- ## Full transcript Saying there's no need to I'm sorry. The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The End ¶¶ THE END The End Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning everybody. Good morning. Welcome. People please find your seats, we'll get started. We have a few, actually two public hearings to hold before we begin to convene as a budget committee of the whole. And I'm going to start with the municipal aid program and mineral severance. So today we're holding a public hearing on the proposed 2019 Municipal Aid Program budget and Mineral Severance budget. So that public hearing is now in session. Are there any comments on the Municipal Aid Program budget? Seeing none, I'll declare that hearing closed. And secondly, this is the hearing on the Mayor's proposed budget content. In compliance with the Urban County Government Charter, we are providing an opportunity for residents to make comments about the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. A summary of the mayor's proposed budget is on the table at the back of the room. That public hearing is now in session. Is there anybody here to comment? Mr. Frazier. Good morning. My name is Jim Frazier. I'm here as the chairman of the Lexington Parking Authority. I believe you all received a letter I prepared back on May 11th, had delivered to y'all's chambers and copied the administration. So I think there's no real surprise of what I want to talk about. I just want to briefly highlight a few matters. I know you've got a lot to do today, and I don't want to take a lot of your time. And there are a lot of needs and a lot of things that need addressing here. And I'm sure you think the parking is low on the totem pole, and I understand that. But I want to bring a few things to your attention. When the parking authority took over the garages from the city years ago, we did so with regard to an acquisition through the units or the stock of the existing corporation. And through no fault of anybody's, anybody's in this room, it turned out that there was a sum of money that were part of those assets that never got transferred to the parking authority. The parking authority picked up the garages, the Helix garage, the Transit Center garage, the Victorian Square, and they took over the management of the courthouse garage. No funds were transferred, just the assets for $1. And the deal was we were going to the parking authority to take over the deferred maintenance. And there was lots of deferred maintenance. Again, nobody's fault. The garages were in bad shape. The Helix was about ready to fall down, quite frankly. If you remember, they used to call it the toothpick garage. They had the poles holding up the spiral. So we took those over, and we've hopefully done our job, fulfilled our mission, which is to make parking better, safer, cleaner, and do all the things that you all ask us to do. And part of being good stewards of the money, of our money, we've collected, and we have been. We have used that money judiciously. We've collected from fines. They're not dollars collected from the taxpayers through revenue. It's strictly just collections. So from those collections, we've done a lot of infrastructure rebuild and repair. Well, it came to light a few months ago, and it was brought to my attention that when we did the transaction from the city, that somehow, someway, we missed this fund number 4161, which had in it at the time $1,398,000 and some change. In all candor, had I known that, had the city known that, had we all known that, I'm sure a discussion would have been had. I don't think it just would have automatically been given to the parking authority, though I would have liked to have thought it would have been. But to be honest with you, I think that to be fair to everybody here, it was an oversight. And so, and I recognize that's what it was. So they brought to my attention and I'm here today because I know some of those monies have been already at least allocated from my understanding to certain worthy, worthy endeavors. And there are many worthy things that need to be funded here. and I recognize that. But the thing I want to point out to the you all to make sure you understand of the money I've been told that's left in that fund, which is roughly $648,000. If that's correct. What's happened to the parking authority over the last few years is my cost. The costs have gone up. These garages that we inherited burn. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, Mr. Frazier. I'm going to have to ask for a motion to extend your time. Sorry. I'll move in a second. Without objection. I apologize. I'll pick up the pace. The garages cost us $1.2 million a year to operate. And that sounds like a lot of money than it is. These things, once you build them, once you repair them, they start to decay the next day. So that $1.2 million a year is funded solely, almost exclusively, from the on-street parking revenues. And the reason I bring that to your attention is, again, through an unforeseen circumstance, When the UK-Lexington-Fayette-Urban county government land swap deal was done, somehow the parking authority got left out of the equation. Again, it was an oversight. It wasn't intentional, in my opinion. And because of that, we are losing a number of parking places around the UK area. And it's been documented, and we've sent this information in. It's $200,000 a year, every year. So you do the multiple of that, that's a lot of revenue that we're losing on a go-forward basis. Again, the cost of these garages continue to escalate. They don't go away, but the revenue stream of which I use to fund those repairs, those things, is getting smaller and smaller. That information plus what's going on at the transit center, you all know that we're having issues with security. We've had to go and hire off-duty police officers to patrol these garages, primarily the transit garage where most of the employees of the government park. And we're glad to do that, but these added costs, again, eat into the revenue stream of the parking authority. My whole point is that we're not flush with cash. I know a lot of people in the room and other places think that we're just bankrolling money. We're really not. These millions are all earmarked. They're restricted for use to put back into the infrastructure that we were pledged to maintain and take care of. So I would just ask and give you an opportunity before you reallocate the rest of the $648,000, that you give some thought to maybe the parking authority could be involved in some of those disbursements. Obviously, I'd like to have them all. I'd like to have the 1.4, but I'm also realistic to know it is what it is. I just wanted to put that out there, let you think about it one more time before you decide what you want to do. I'll answer any questions you may have if I can. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Is there anybody else who is here for public comment? Seeing none, I'll declare that hearing closed. Then we will move to the next item on the agenda, which is Mayor's late items. I'm sorry. of the proposed budget revenue, debt, and capital. Commissioner. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We've included the usual financial report, but what I would like to do is summarize that to headlines that the revenues currently are $6.2 million below budget, and expenses are $10.4 million under budget. The observation we have is we had talked to you before that we did anticipate not making budgeted revenues. We took that in consideration when we made the proposal for the FY19 revenues. So this is the month where sometimes you get paid this month, sometimes you get paid next month. So this is not the month to predict what our final position will be. We do feel there is erosion compared to budget, and we had predicted before that we would be under budget by about $2 million. That could be $2 to $4 million by the end of the year. We'll have to wait and see. We had already talked about that and used that when we made the proposal for the FY19 revenue. So we're here today to say that we stand by the revenue projection that we gave in the 2019 Mayor's proposed budget and are not recommending any changes. Second part is we have savings and that we feel comfortable with the recommended Mayor's proposed budget of reallocation of 2.25 million that is included in the budget. We feel there's capacity there, even with some erosion in the revenue, to cover both the proposed budget revenue and the proposed budget to do reallocation of the $2.25 million. So I don't know if you'd like to go into more, but I thought those were the succinct information points for today. I think that's very helpful. Let me see if any council members have questions or comments. I see nobody signed in. In that case, I would entertain a motion to adopt the 2019 revenue and budget projections. Survey, second. Motion, second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That will bring us now to the Mayor's Light Items, pages 14 through 19 on our packet. We don't have a lot, so if you all have to look at all your packets, I hope that's okay. So for the general services fund, general fund, we have a revenue decrease. We were double counting reimbursements for overtime work for events and parks, so we need to lower our revenue by $59,400 because of that late item. It was double counted. They reduced their expense request based on the reimbursements that they get, and then it was also in the requested revenue, so we were counting that reimbursement twice. So we have that late item. That's on the first page of our late items. And it lowers the revenue estimate by the $59,400. And then if I could go to the next page, we have two more late items that are general fund. One is the Explorium. The five-year time period for the bad debt ends with fiscal year 18, so we can reduce the expenses by $38,500 in the general fund for that line item. And then we are correcting the county judge executive salary based on the CPI. So that's an increase of expense of $1,368. If you take the decreased revenue for parks, the Explorium, FAD debt, and this CPI change for the county judge executive, We have a change to the general fund of $22,268. So we would request approval of those changes for the general fund. I have a motion and a second to approve these amendments. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. And then we have one final late item, and it is in the Water Quality Management Fund. This is a position that was entered into HCM as an 80-hour-a-week position instead of a 40-hour-a-week position, so the salary was doubled. It's a vacant position, so nobody was getting paid double, so don't worry about that. I saw your mouth open there. So it's just reducing expense in the Water Quality Management Fund to correct this position. And we've worked with HR, and they've corrected the position in HCM. So this is a reduction of $117,342. Move approval. Again, a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I apologize. I have one more item. We got emailed about 845 this morning. This is an item that has no impact necessarily on the dollars of the budget. There's a new GASB that's going to be starting July 1st. Our prisoner account fund is fund number 4203. What we need to do is we need to, accounting has created a new fund to meet the rules of GASB. It is fund 5062. So all of the expenses and revenue in fund 4203, we need to change the fund number and make it 5062. So if we could have approval on that, that starts July 1st, so we need to incorporate that into the budget as well. There's no dollar impact, just the fund number's changing. The motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council member, no discussion. Thank you. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, that's all we have. Thank you. That will allow us to move to the council link report out and recommendations. And if everybody would turn to the second last page here, page 119, so we have a summary of all that information and I would ask that we work off that. And if people want to refer back to the detail that's in the packet, they should do so. And we'll just go from top to bottom, starting with general services and planning. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just as a beginning point, so with those changes we just made, what is our effective or projected fund balance per the budget at this time? Based on the changes that you just approved, as we have done the last couple years in this exercise, we have pulled out the 1.5 million that the administration typically starts with on July 1. Yes, ma'am. Deducting the $22,000 that you all just approved would leave an amount of $1,658,453 minus the $22,268 is $1,636,185. Take that $1.5 million that the administration starts with July 1, that leaves us with $136,185 to start for general fund. Repeat that for me, please. $136,185. Thank you. That does answer that question. I just think we should proceed rather cautiously on how to spend any or all of that and making other assumptions inside the budget itself. Because I think there's always a call to change maybe what the amount of the reserve is, like maybe making it a million, not a million and a half. And I think there's also some thought process behind some of the funds that the administration has rightfully decided to hold on to for future pension use. And I think we should hold on to those funds. And I know that the link I'm going to report out on is making a couple of recommendations really without a funding mechanism for them. So I just want us to proceed with caution in closing this out because I think we're in kind of a narrow time in terms of the revenue opportunities. Thank you. Thank you. And that will allow us to move the general services and planning link. Chair, reporting. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, let me start by thanking my LINC members, Council Member Maloney and Council Member Fred Brown, and my aide, Tiffany Tatum, and their aides for working on the LINC together. In regards to the mayor's proposed budget, the only changes that we look to make are listed on the sheet. The first one being in the Department of Building Inspection, we were looking to create a part-time ADA coordinator, grade 518, to conduct ADA building inspections and upgrade the ADA transition plan at a cost of $34,000. and where we were looking to pay for that position was by decreasing professional service fund in the facilities and fleet management division by the same amount, $34,000. So do we need to take these items one by one? Yes, and it includes both the decrease and the increase, where the funds are coming from. So I'll compare those two together. And if the administration wants to speak to it and maybe answer questions, just to give us some background information is we made this change based on information that was shared with us from the administration. This money in professional services was actually allocated for ADA initiatives. So this coordinator would help do some work that we needed done and also address what the money was going to be allocated towards in the first place, if council members have any questions. So would you just make a motion to that effect on numbers one and two? I so move to make the change to create a part-time ADA coordinator and reallocate the funds from facilities and fleet management. So move. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I go back to the conversation about recurring funds. Is this part-time ADA coordinator position only going to be for one fiscal year, or is it going to be an ongoing position? It's going to be an ongoing position, but it's going to continue as part-time just because what was shared with us from the administration is that we think that part-time position will fulfill the need that we currently have with reviewing building plans and making sure that the city is compliant as far as ADA guidelines. Okay, and I appreciate the reasoning and everything, but if you're taking it from professional services account, which is a one-time take, that means that from the next budget on, because it will be a recurring expense, that $34,000 will have to be pulled or put in somewhere because if you're just taking it from this one account for one time, unless you expect if the professional services account is always funded at that $34,000, do we know that? Where the $34,000 is coming is there is $50,000 allocated one-time allocation for an ADA transition plan in that budget. So it is not a continuing. It's a one-time for the transition plan. Thank you for that information. Having learned that information, I don't think that I would be able to support it because it would become a recurring cost. And I think, just like Council Member Farmer said, I think we're going to have to really be diligent and really be hard, fast about our decision-making today because the next several years we're going to be facing some really tough decisions. And even as minimum as $34,000, still it adds up. So I appreciate that, and gosh knows what I've been through lately. I know what the responsibility and the importance of it, too. But I'm hoping that we could find another way of being able to handle this ADA coordinator position part-time as opposed to pulling it from the Professional Services Fund. But thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. To give a little bit of history about this, I'm on the Disability Commission. There were four or five recommendations that came out of it. and two of them were money recommended. One was $50,000 that we were getting ready to rewrite the program that we did in-house for. It has to be done every five years. They wanted to have a consultant this time come in. The second thing was requested that Roger Damon, who is on the fourth floor, had been going to all these meetings every Tuesday, and he's not certified to do the ada uh compliance and some of our building inspections are not ada in compliance one of the recommendations came out of the building inspection was to make everybody ada compliant which was going to cost a lot of money and an increase in fees they forgot to make the recommendation to make this a part-time job so the person who comes in will be certified which would be a lot cheaper we'll be able to do what roger does and also be able to help where the programs have been left out so next year when the budget comes around the building i mean uh derrick paulson will know that this is going to be highly recommended to be in the budget for a part-time to stay in compliance with the ada and that's the reason why where we at the 50 000 is what we were going to do is take it to $34,000, the $50,000 that was supposed to be in for the consultant, is now we're going to go back and do it in-house, but there will be $11,000 set aside if they need a higher consultant to come update any more information that we left out. So this is really important that we're really not doing what we're supposed to be doing. I'm having somebody who's not certified going every Tuesday, spending six hours of his day when he's not certified to do that, and we never had anybody to do it. So this is an opportunity to say in compliance, and that's one reason why we try to move the money around. So hopefully you all would support this, because we've had some buildings that have been built over the last 10 years that are not quite up to standard for ADA compliance. So, and with the new law that just passed, I mean, the new increase for commercial building code that we got this year, the commission put together and went to Frankfort, and we got it done in Frankfort in one day, which they've been wanting to do for 20 years, this is going to be new language that we've got to have in there to keep it in compliance with the new ADA building code for the state of Kentucky that's going to be required in hearing lessons. And so hopefully you all will be on board this next year. we need to fix this problem and make it permanent part-time person that's the reason why where we are today thank you councilmember stinnett thank you vice mayor I just want to be clear on the process as councilmember Farmer referenced if we go through here and as your goal to approve each one one by one today or we just put in for consideration later because we'll be done we'll be out of money after the second link so if we approve everything thing so normally we've had this discussion almost every year yes we do so we always have it so I just want to be clear what people are voting on because if we approve this each link one by one we won't get to the council members recommendations so my understanding is that any proposed increase is supposed to be offset with some information about where that money is going to come from And as long as we're doing that, as this particular item suggests, we're not running out of money. We're just using money from other sources. So I believe what we're doing, as we've done in the past, is we're voting these up or down. We'll go through the whole list, and we have another meeting scheduled in June when people can further amend. And if we have additional information at that time, if people want to make more changes, but I believe we need to be on the record about voting each one of these. Understand, and it's not about the first one. There's a couple more coming up that will wipe out a couple of the other funds, and we won't have any money left. So we're going to operate in the negative is my point at some point today, because otherwise what's the point of going through them all if we're already in the negative? We can't approve everything. Well, I guess I'm willing, unless there's other objections, to go through and see where we end up. And if we, in fact, end up in the negative, we'll have to deal with that. We'll have to find the money somewhere. We know we have to balance the budget. We understand that. All right. The question I have on this piece, and thank you, Councilman Brown. I appreciate the creativity and moving some of the monies around. So part-time, why wouldn't we want to do it full-time again? I didn't think I think what was shared with us that we didn't need a full-time position is that part-time would be more than sufficient to cover the need with with reviewing plans and in our current facilities okay so then there's no way to cross-train anyone else already employed that could do this role or become certified that's already working here we had discussed that and I would defer to councilmember Maloney to answer that because we had explored that option as well And Derek may want to get up too, but if we were to certify everybody at this position, we would have to increase. This is like getting, and then the last thing we want to do, as you know, is increase anybody's salary. And having, you really don't need somebody there full time. They're going to be looking at the plans and during the week they will go out and inspect whether the building being built and it won't be something like they have to be there all day like a regular building inspector looking at all the plans they're just specifically looking at handicap accessibility which is not a full-time job and to me derek you might want to follow up on that if you want to because explain to them that it will cost a lot of money to get everybody certified well i think my point was though can we just get one person certified not everybody will be certified that's already employed here this person will be said do we not have that that capability of enhancing someone else's position that's already actively employed. We could I think what what council member Maloney is getting at is we would have to look then to see if that person would need to be reclassified. I think that's something HR would have to study to determine if that would require reclassification and an increase in salary versus going a part time position that can handle that and help possibly train people at the same time. So I assume we'll call them in at will as we need them to go and do something it's more along the lines of plan review so which is which goes on every Tuesday and then possibly you know at another time as well I think our plan was more of a structured schedule than an ad hoc but it would be every Tuesday for plan review as well as you know we'd work on that schedule but it would be a structured schedule not a you know kind of a more ad hoc I see when you hire them to already had the certification or we have to pay for the training we would hire someone that certified okay thank you sir thank you Thank you. Council Member Massardi. Thank you. I guess I'm just a little concerned that an organization of this size that we don't already have people on staff that know how to do this. Can someone respond to that? ADA compliance is not new. I know there's new codes. There's new building codes. I understand that. I think that's more along the lines of where we're talking is about some of the new things that have come along. We do check for ADA compliance right now. I mean, that is part of the plan review, but I think what we're getting into is as the changes are coming along, they're going to require different certifications than we have. But wouldn't it make sense, I mean, since we've got inspectors all ready to certify them rather than have someone come in new? Because, I mean, they're going to be on the ground dealing with all these issues. Two ways to go about it. You are correct. We could take an individual who is here and possibly reclass them with that new training, or we could go with part-time. Or are they overwhelmed? Let me ask you that question. I don't know that I'd say that they're overwhelmed, but we are efficiently staffed. I'll just say that. So we do not have a lot of extra time in terms of our building inspectors right now. I just think it's really important if we're going to send an inspector out there, they need to know all the updated codes and compliances and so forth. Right. And that is part of their licensing, that they do maintain those. But I think we're talking about something a little bit different this time. So basically enhancing this position would be of the greater good rather than us hiring somebody part-time. Is that what you're indicating? I think there's two ways to go about this is what I'll say. Again, you can go with hiring a part-time person that is already certified. You could take an individual now, which may result in a reclassification, to get them to that same level of training. I almost feel like you need to do that with the personnel you already have because then you've got personnel on site. then you've got to call your part-time coordinator to oversee what they've done to make sure that it is ADA compliant. So you've got a lot of duplication of effort here. Yes and no. Really, I think the way this was envisioned by Council in putting this in is that they would be part of the plan review process. So it wouldn't be they would be called in. Plan review is every Tuesday, so it would go on as they would just be part of that plan review. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Mr. Paulson, don't go away. Please. To piggyback on what has already been said, so is there a chance that this position would only be needed for one calendar or fiscal year through this updating the transition plan? Is that possible? I wouldn't think that it would be. I think, as Council Member Maloney stated, I think it's more of a recurring issue. I don't think this is something that would, I don't see it going away, no. Okay. Well, I concur with the other comments that have been stated, and I guess I have to reiterate that it concerns me that if we're going to put in money for a position that will become a recurring cost with the understanding that we have no control over whether in the next fiscal year that a budget, a position will be created or not. So that's just my two cents worth. You know, I definitely see the importance of this, but it's concerning about the recurring costs. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plumman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Maybe I'm not clear on this, but in our link, general government, we had the Human Rights Commission come in and talk to us about, they said they had a fund request due to the increase in expected caseload and ada complaints so i guess i'm trying to understand is there someone doing ada in the human rights commission and also someplace else um duplication maybe they could take on some of these responsibilities i believe the human rights commission is about in complaints and enforcement rather than initial design commissioner you want to add to that i just need a clarification because it's showing up there i really don't have much more to add we the complaints are different than this this is new construction where this would be so the plan review process that goes on every tuesday is is about new construction projects so it's reviewing plans i mean it's very simply so if that person's trained though they could they do that also i think if you're if that would probably move to a very different kind of position if you're reviewing plans on tuesdays and then responding to complaints um again the so the way that it's two very different things if you're able to review plans you have certain levels of certifications that have to be earned at the state level that involve you know one and two family homes and then the commercial certifications on top of that it's not something that can be earned very quickly so two different trainings you've got two different I think responding to complaints is not the same thing as reviewing building plans, by any means, particularly on the commercial level. Those are much more advanced than even single-family homes. Okay, thanks for the clarification. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Maloney. To follow up on the human rights, I'm on that commission, the Disability Commission. They look at, for example, you have a building downtown that's grandfathered in, and they put a new restaurant in there. and they don't put handicapped wheelchairs in there. They're not out of compliance. So those are the complaints that they're getting in the human rights. This job here is for new construction that we have seen over the years. The mistakes have been made that people did not look to see how wide the doors were. The doors were open a certain way in the last 20 years with the ADA. and by the time you get somebody in the building, it's too late to put it in compliance because you have to tear someone's building down. This job here, which we never had before, would be somebody sitting on new development plans that we have not done, even though these guys are already certified to look at ADA, but they really mostly look at all the problems we have out there. ADA is a big problem, and so is electrical, so is plumbing, so is all that. But the commission has found so much complaints, and this is one of the biggest problems they have, is buildings that have been built in the last 20 years that have been left out. By having these eyes there, watching this on a new project, it will help people who have wheelchairs or handicapped or any kind that they have never had this up and that we don't have this problem if we build a new building and this is what the commission asked for now the question you asked about getting somebody certified and this is the problem we had is if if you're going to start by one person if i'm a building inspector and i find out this guy gets reclassified and i've been there longer than he has i want the same job in other words that's going to be cost everybody in building inspection to be reclassified which would mean we're going to have to pay an arm and leg and I thought we're not reclassifying it from what I've been told but to be certified you're going to have to be a special technique to be ADA compliant but they are a minimum compliant this is going above to comply and what the state passed and what they passed this year there's going to be more commercial project that we have that thank god they passed it to help that get more in line with the federal ada we have never been in line with the federal ada we're finally getting in line with the federal ada we're still a long way from there but we're getting closer and to me if you want to do get certified you're going to create a mess because i guarantee you i can get 10 of them over there they're going to want that reclassification now if we get the one person who's part-time who is certified that can we're going in there for one reason to make sure these buildings stay in compliance they can also train these people if they want to but they don't have to they can show them you're wrong here we got to do this this so that is the reason why we're here today now i understand susan land farm the problem was the mistake was made in build inspection for not putting it in their budget when they told us they were going to and that question was brought up in in the lakes. The $50,000 is where we came up with it. And next year we told them they have to do that or we will be out, we could be in big trouble for not following the compliance of ADA and the new compliance people. So I'm just trying to keep proactive for handicapped people. And if we don't do that, we haven't done it for the last 20 years. We need to start today. So hopefully you all understand where we are. So going back to a couple of council members wanting to reclassify that. If you all want to send this message, we got six people here that I'm looking on here to want to be reclassified. If you all want to get into that fight, you're welcome to do that. Now, you can tell what the money is. I'm pushing money around it that we can use, and then next year, the building inspector is going to have to make cuts, and they're going to have to make sure how important that job is. So be careful when you ask about reclassification. Thank you. I see no one further I'm going to call for a voice vote. If we need to, we'll do a roll call. All in favor of the proposal, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Let's do a roll call. Please sign in with your vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. We're going to the next item. Thank you, Vice Mayor. The next item is in the Division of Code Enforcement Housing and Sidewalks. I make a motion to increase the sidewalk, to increase the assistance sidewalk fund by $20,000. and decrease the professional service fund in the Division of Code Enforcement by $20,000, the same amount. So what we're looking to do is to increase the sidewalk assistance fund and decrease the professional services fund in Code Enforcement. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on this motion? I do, too. Seeing none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And then the next one is in Park and Recreation. The Division of Park and Recreation had requested $54,000 for a design of a new splash playground and playground at Charles Young Park. And the administration, it wasn't included in the mayor's proposed budget. And during our link, we had talked about that and we're making a motion. I would like to make a motion to include that $54,000 and actually taking that, funding that project through the public parking fund 4161. So move. The motion, is there a second? Hearing none, that motion dies for lack of a second. Y'all don't have to talk about it. I believe. Thank you. That allows us to move to finance and social services. Chair. Thank you. We're not through with general services, are we? Yeah, we are. Yeah, he's only going through these budgetary books. Okay. Where is this? The last two pages. Sorry, I wasn't on the right page. Okay. And likewise, I want to thank Councilmembers Worley and Councilor... Who was the other one? Council Member Mazzotti, sorry, for serving on our budget link and also for my staff and the aides for their help. And the only thing that we had is the Finance and Social Services Explorium had requested for renovation of the bubble room. and they had expressed that it would be $50,000 and we were wanting to propose that to be a discussion at the FY18 fund balance discussion at that time. Yes, later this year. Yes. So I'd like to, I assume that that would be appropriate for a motion to. A motion that we'll put that on the top of the list. For the fund balance. For the fund balance discussion. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. That's it, thanks. Okay, General Government. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would also like to thank my fellow LINC members, which Vice Mayor you were a part of, as well as Councilmember Plowman. I'll start with the first recommendation. Actually, the first two, they work together. And this is coming from our budget, is to, or as council, is to abolish the council staff specialist fund, as well as the security officer that we have budgeted. they are currently in our budget but we have not filled them and the security position has been vacant for as at least a couple of years i think at this point but to combine those to create one additional position of deputy coroner they made the corner's office coroner's office made a compelling argument about why they needed an additional staff person. The reason that stuck out most to me was that when they have an overdose, opioid overdose, they're not doing their normal autopsy. They're doing autopsies as if it was a homicide. So because they are now prosecuting the dealers. So they have to change their way of doing things. It's not just a normal autopsy, which of course requires more time. So they do have a backlog, which I just found interesting to see the trickle-down effect of when you change a law in one area, how that affects other divisions and here it's now we're prosecuting dealers for murder manslaughter or whatever so now the corner has to change their the way they do things but again it was a compelling argument so I would move or I'd like to put those together if that would be appropriate so I would move to abolish the council staff specialist and the security officer to fund the deputy coroner position that I will later make a motion on. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just going to ask council staff to give a little explanation about these two positions that are on the block right now. The council staff specialist is our front desk position. It's currently vacant and has been since probably January. The security officer position was actually created a few years ago. You guys might remember we had a discussion at a Cal about security. And at that point, we created a security position that general services or general government was going to fill, but we were going to fund. That didn't work out. And I thought that position had already been abolished. So I'm not sure how it ended up being funded, but it is. We have confirmed that. So on a daily basis, there would be no per se change in the operating of the council office by abolishing these two positions? Other than you won't have anyone at the front desk. And I know some of you really feel strongly that we need that position and some don't. what what are the duties of that person when there is someone at that front desk which is on the fifth floor yes it's on the fifth floor because all of us are on the fourth floor so there's no consistent person there if we have visitors our new system is that you have to go down and greet them anyway so you having someone there isn't really greeting guests that come in they would answer the phones currently Kendra is doing that we just have them forwarded and just routine, picking up the mail. Currently we have an aide who's nice enough to do that. There's not a whole lot of need for that job, but we've been back and forth with it. When we have it filled, we always try to find stuff to fill the time, but sometimes that's easier than others, as you all know. So it has been filled previously, but in the other position it has not been filled. The security officer has never been filled. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. I actually would like to ask someone from the administration. Are all of the corner positions funded by general funds by us? They are? So none of them? Okay. All right. I'm not sure how I feel about this, but I'll figure it out when I get ready to vote, so thanks. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Even though I do support the work that the Coroner's Office does, I'm not going to support this motion just because I'm in favor of staff in the front desk position. I see the benefit in it and have. And then this new position, I know security has been an issue of several council members for a long time since I've been on council. And I think it would have been good information for us to know that that position would have been funded so we could discuss how we could move forward with that. So for those reasons, I'm not going to support that motion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for bringing that forward. I've been on that. I've heard the coroner talk about that last year's budget link, and he does make a very compelling case. I think the question that I would just like us to think about is I'm okay with reducing both of those two positions. I think that we can make do without them. The question I would have, is that the best use of that funds moving forward? And if that resource, the money from that resource could be better used for other council needs, is that more of a priority out of the council budget than moving it over to the coroner's budget? Well, I think he desperately needs help. So I believe both things are good. I'm not sure I want to see them linked, one going to the other. Knowing that, I think we have other needs we've talked about as things we would like to have council staff be able to do that we haven't really fully explored some times on positions. So that's kind of where I'm sitting, although I'm very sympathetic. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Massardi. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Stacey, can you tell me what specific duties that council staff specialists that we are abolishing, what their duties were or were supposed to be? As I mentioned, sometimes it's difficult to fill that time now that we are fully staffed in the core staff. the last couple of people that we've had in it we've had them helping out with committee summaries and things like that but now that we are fully staffed we don't really need that extra support with committee summaries or committee work and we're currently handling all of the research so it's a pretty basic entry-level position primarily responsible for just being there to greet people as they come in answer the phones you know occasionally they'll fill up copiers or whatever. It's just pretty general office support. So, I mean, there's not a lot, unfortunately, for that person to do. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up, but I'd like to... Oh. I've got... You want to get back? Okay. Council Member Stinnett, Councilmember Stendent, would you mind taking the chair just for a moment? And I'd like to be recognized. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. So I serve on this link, and I heard the presentation, and I think the rationale for the additional position is justified. I also think that what council members may want to do going forward, and actually I'm going to put it on the agenda for our next cow, and that is another look at the staffing. We've discussed this many times. I think it's worth discussing again, but I believe that we should take the recommendation of the link at this point, then look at the whole staffing situation and figure out kind of where we stand going forward, so we don't need those positions in the short term. So I'm going to support the motion. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I also sat on this link, and after listening to that, it was kind of horrifying, some of the things that they're having to do. So I also will support this. We also had the cow, but we did not get to the security discussion we were going to have, and I think maybe we need to look at that as a whole, not just in our council offices. So, again, just listening to that presentation, as you said, Council Member Bledsoe and Vice Mayor, I couldn't believe that that was actually happening. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Evans. I was just going to add one more thing. I was one of those Council Members that wanted that reception position. I do think it adds to just the professionalism, but we haven't had it in a while. And based on staff's explanation of what they do, it just seems a very difficult position to keep. And we've never had that security position filled. So while I understand the thought about it, that's just something we've never used. And it's whether or not we knew we had the money there or we just decided not to use it. but I understand the idea of crossing funds. But again, we were charged with finding the funds for the recommendations that we made. This was the money I knew that was available, so that's why I used it, or why we used it. That was our recommendation. If there are other funds somewhere, that's fine. But we were charged with finding the funds for our recommendations, and that's what we did. And, again, I think it shows that we felt so strongly about it, we were willing to sacrifice funds from our own budget. But those were my additional comments to that. But to let you know, I understand wanting at least the receptionist position, because I was one that wanted that. But at this point, it was such a compelling argument that is for the greater good of the city, actually, that I was willing to make that sacrifice in our own budget. So that's all. Thank you. No one else has signed in. I think let's vote electronically on this. All those in favor, please sign in electronically. For or against. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next item. Yes, the next one was the corner position, so I will bypass that since that was in the previous motion. The second recommendation that the link had was to fund the 10% reduction that was made in the workforce development grants. That came from the chief development officer and I'm sorry, I'm getting a question. I believe that the motion was to abolish the position and to allocate, to do both those things. If that was not clear. I didn't see that up here. That may be the subject coming. I believe that. What's the motion? Was it? Thank you. Pardon me. You looked at a previous level. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Proceed. That's okay. Council Member Evans. Yes, it was presented to us that there was a 10% reduction in the workforce grant agencies, which was the equivalent of $30,000 that was going to seven agencies. And it was our understanding that the grants had been made, and it's just a continuation, but they accepted those awards with the understanding that the second allocation of those awards would be based on our budget. And we, as a link, didn't think it was fair to have that reduction for these agencies who clearly made arguments that they were committed to increasing our workforce and improving the workforce that we have. So we didn't want to reduce their awards because we couldn't find the money for it. So we, as a link, voted to, again, increase or fund the 10% reduction that was made in the mayor's proposed budget with the public parking funds that were found. So I would move that we accept the link recommendation to fund the balance of 10% reduction of the Workforce Development Grants with the remainder, a portion of the remaining public parking corporation funds that were discovered. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Hearing none. All in favor please say, I'm sorry. Councilmember Worley. Thank you Vice Mayor. Councilmember Evans, could you enlighten us a little bit about the cause of the reduction of the Workforce Development Grants and where those monies were being used? Well I can't explain the cause and yeah I guess I would ask our guests, our Development Officer, to come and speak to that. I guess the reduction who those awards went to. Councilmember Worley, I don't have the full seven list in front me but there are workforce grant partners you all voted on the PSA's for them at your last council meeting the 10% came from an across-the-board 10% we decided in our office to take the the 10% reduction and from the previous year's budget that included the $30,000 reduction for the workforce partners we have not yet decided based on what the outcome here is if we have to take the 10% how that will be allocated will it evenly be allocated across the partners or will it be based on their contract for placement you know there are a lot of methods we could do it if that's your I think that's your question that does thank you just make a comment though as a matter of principle I don't necessarily disagree with propping up the workforce development grants though there's a lot of items here using the public parking money and regardless of how folks feel about whether some of that should go back to the parking authority or how all that came to be i do think that we need to be cautious of considering that a 20 bill you found in your winter coat when you pull it out of the closet you know it's we've got a lot of really valuable uh and and good issues that there that that money could be used towards uh whether anything goes back to the parking authority or not and i just think we ought to be careful in every little shortfall that we see just saying well here just grab that and throw it that way it's just my just my thought and why i'm while i agree with this in principle i'm hesitant to support thank you thank you council member bledsoe i thank you vice mayor i completely agree with adding the 30 000. i'd see us take it from general fund over the parking money just because i think it benefits the entire city as opposed to just one area or one issue and i think jobs are the one things that we have got to continue to work towards and this is a promise we made to do that so i'm extremely supportive of the motion but i prefer to take it from the journal fund balance 136 than the parking money this is a suggestion you move to amend i'm in the mission for that yes as a friendly amendment then i would move to take the money from the 136 000 fund balance reduction of 30 000 I have a motion and a second to amend to make the source of that the existing fund balance. Discussion on that motion? Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't want to get us distracted from the subject, but I think this is relevant. I think as we go down the list and look at some of these requests, and some of them are from the parking fund, But I think there's an elephant in the room with one of the requests, and I would think that maybe it might be in our best interest to maybe look at that and see if there's other funding opportunities for that so the parking fund doesn't become this, you know, something that we don't want to touch. But I am supportive of the Workforce Development Grant project. I mean, but if that makes sense. I mean, because I think what we're going to do is I think we have a couple more that come up before this big one. okay but so here procedurally we have a motion and a motion to amend on the table on the floor so i want to i take that into consideration but that's what's at the moment that's what we are discussing so council member no so just to be clear the motion to amend is to change the source of funds from the public parking corporation to the existing fund balance no further discussion on the motion on the to amend all in favor please say aye aye any opposed no that's member brown i believe is the only objection that motion carries that brings us now to the original motion as amended is there any further discussion on the motion Seeing none, all in favor of the motion as amended, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. And next, the next link recommendation. Council Member Evans, just procedurally, let me recognize Council Member Brown. Okay. and his suggestion. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I apologize to council members for maybe being out of order, but I just think that we're reluctant to address that fund just because of an upcoming item. I don't want to get out of order with the links, but I was wondering if there was any way or would council consider and maybe having a discussion on the $600,000 ass of the parking fund before we continue on, just because I think that it could impact votes and decisions when we're making requests on the parking fund. If you'll make that in the form of a motion to take number 16 out of order, I would consider that motion. Council Member Brown? Yes, sir. I'll make that motion. It's a motion to take number 16 out of order and place it next on the agenda. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion to second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Members, please log in electronically. I'll give you. For clarification, can you restate the motion? I'm sorry. Can you restate the motion? The motion is to take number 16 on our list, which is the additional funds for the new Canine facility, and move it up to the next item on our agenda. That vote, I've got one more vote. As if someone has not voted, just for the record. Council Member Smith. Okay, thank you. That vote reflects a failure of the motion. It will allow us to continue. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm sorry. Hold on. Okay. The next recommendation the link had was to fund the request of $4,800 for the increase in expected caseload in the ADA complaints to be funded from the unused balance in facilities and fleet management professional services. It was our understanding that there was approximately $50,000 that was going to be used for a study that was not going to be completed. So use a portion of those funds, because again, I believe they were for ADA purposes as well, but to use that still in the same spirit, but to provide the $4,800 to the Human Resources Commission, because they did expect at least an additional 10 cases or so because the person from the state had retired. And so they were expecting an influx in those types of complaints based on the vacancy at the state level. I would make that motion. for that to fund the $4,800 with the unused balance in the fleet management professional services. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just to add some clarity to it, the fund that they're proposing to take this money from was the professional services money in facilities and fleet that we had already reallocated towards the part-time position. This money would help pay for the Human Rights Commission to do ADA complaint investigations. And then we had also talked with the division about them using the remainder of that professional services money to hire a consultant to complete the ADA plan that they requested the money initially to update. Just for clarity. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you. Is the 4,800 going to just be going into their purchase of service agreement, or is it going to be toward a position? Is it for services, or is it for a position? Well, it is not for a position. They currently take complaints anyway. They were just expecting the influx or an increase in that. So I'm not sure who's in charge of those complaints. Okay, well, Bill's coming to the podium. And again, what I'm getting at is the same thing that I pointed out with Council Member James Brown's point, is this going to become a recurring expense, and that's, you know, maybe. It was not my understanding that it would be, but I will defer to Mr. O'Meara. I was here to answer the question. it would be an increase to the PSA, to the Human Rights Commission. Okay. All right. So thank you for that. Thanks. Okay. So this, okay, so the original amount in that professional services account was $50,000, and we're taking $34,000 out for the ADA, right, because of the motion. So that leaves $16,000. So now we're down to, okay, so, and so, so as long as it's not recurring, I guess that's my big question, so all right, thanks. Thank you. Nobody else signed up to speak? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And then last we had from the PVA's office, they made a compelling argument about software. It was a little technical. I can just tell you it's about software that they need to continue doing their job. They're having a lot of people retire, so there were a couple of people on staff that had done it the old-fashioned way, but now there is software that will make it faster, better, stronger, all of that. And so he had requested software to improve the efficiency of their office. And I guess we had decided that money would come from the remaining parking funds as well. So I would make that motion. Have a motion, is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. Discussion, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you Vice Mayor. I think this is more of a holistic policy question. It's as some of our offices make more requests, which he has done before, and And we have on a variety of different things from previous budget links. And we've tried to fund those specific things from expansion of the front desk, if I recall, and other things. A number of other agencies also have that. And so my question is just how, where do we draw that line, I think, is the question. And I'll just leave that up for thoughts. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I too had this on my individual list because this is a hardware, true hardware replacement, not software. And I do think it would be a better part of our computer package. Are we bonding any computer items this year at all, zero this year? Are we leasing new hardware? Is that how we're going to proceed versus purchase? We started about three. This will be about the fourth year that we started leasing computers and have them on a three-year replacement cycle. We've been trying not to bond for items less than $100,000, and with a life cycle of three years, we're trying to stay away from that in the bonding side. And what about, like, the servers and things like that? How are we replacing those? That I would have to look at Aldona for guidance. Surely we don't lease our servers. Servers that go along with large implementations are usually bonded as part of that implementation. Servers that need to be replaced sometimes are purchased or they're purchased on a cycle. Usually we do not lease servers. And when was the last time we bonded or bought new servers? Last year or a year before? We have bought probably a couple of years ago, but we replaced servers as needed. sometimes a lot of the servers now we are able to do virtual partitioning so we can buy larger servers and partition them for a specific use and have you spoken to the PVA but they're not spoken to the PVA do we do any work for their office no we do not we did in fact we used to share some of the printing of the of the bills they do a lot of that themselves now right okay but we're we're sending them the information electronically for the bills that is correct we sent them information actually information is allocated from several different departments for them to be able to do that okay very good thank you thank you thank you nobody else signed up to speak all those in favor of the motion please say aye aye all opposed we need a roll electronic vote please Two more votes. Council member Gibbs, yes or no? Yes. Council member Gibbs is a yes. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next, public safety. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to thank Council Member Bledsoe and Council Member Henson, who's not with us today, for their work and our aides for getting us a quick meeting schedule and getting done. Thank you, Commissioner Armstrong. It was your first go around. Thank you for all you and your directors for being there, too. First item, animal care and control. This is a radio upgrade to put them on our system. Right now, our police officers and our animal care officers cannot communicate. They have to use cell phones. So this actually should have been put on our system when we upgraded our police and fire, and they were not. So we're asking the 6,620 to make them parallel with our current system so they don't have to use the good old unreliable cell phone to be able to communicate in situations where the police need them or we need the police. So moved. The source of those funds? Right here, general fund. From the general fund. Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Yeah, right, from the fund balance. Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next item were the mowers for corrections. I believe Fleet Service has deemed those mowers almost dead. They probably won't last the rest of the summer. This was the mowers that they used at the MHUs outside the facility to maintain the jail and the grounds around it. The cost of four new mowers is approximately $43,000. They have to do it. They have to get mowers or, you know, the other options to contract it out, and that cost would be higher to contract it out. So this is coming from a public safety fund, and it's for $43,000. The balance in that fund is north of $900,000. So we ask to take the $43,000 from there for the maintenance and operation and housing of the prisoners at our jail. So moved. A motion in a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. The next item, we've all received an email from our CEO's office, and she's here, can speak to this as well. But going on three years now, we've bonded for a new kennel for our canine. We invested a lot of money in these animals, $50,000 for 12 dogs. The facility they're in is a big issue in their health and longevity of these animals. So we did this three years ago, and we've been sitting on a bond and paying interest because we can't get it to where we need to be. But we finally got it there. We have the location. We have, I think, the second or third round of bids on this. So we believe we have a final good number, and we need 600,000 so that we can get these animals housed properly and cared for and protect our investment and safety for these animals and for the community. As you know, we use them quite extensively. So I'll make a motion to take the money from the Public Parking Corporation and put it to public safety to complete the K-9 facility. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion, Council Member Massadi. Teresa, maybe you can help me here. What is our balance in the public parking corporation fund? It currently sits at $623,502. Can I try that again? $623,502. And we've already taken what out of it so far? That includes the $25,000 for the PVA's computer. Okay, so we're at 623 there. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess my question is to finance. How much is this a bondable project, the K-9 facility? Yes, it is. And if so, what will be the debt service payment on? Debt service for this additional $600,000 for the first year would be $15,000 and then $45,000 a year thereafter. Okay. If I'm correct, I think this year we're under what previous year bonding capacity has been. Is that correct? I mean, the amount that we're or the percentage that we're bonding is less than the past two years. Well, that may be a true statement. We're looking at our total bond package, and we felt that this was a reasonable bond package that was recommended in the mayor's proposed budget. The actual answer on what to do with the kennel was not available to us when we did put the mayor's proposed budget together. We were, at that time, pursuing some other alternatives that might be from a lease versus a purchase. this purchase and build on our own land has come out to be the favored approach. And that's why it's was not funded one way or the other in the mayor's proposed budget. Okay. All right. And you know, I'm in support of the kennel. I think, you know, the service they provide to our division of public safety is invaluable. I would move to amend the motion to bond that $600,000 canine facility. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Farmer, are you up for the no? Council Member Bledsoe on the amendment? I do, yes. Commissioner, why would you prefer or do you have a preference on if it is a bondable project moving forward or why would it be better for us to spend the money on this that wants to be done? Well, if you ask me my preference, I would always want to use cash rather than borrowed money. It's a matter of is this cash appropriate to be used for this or something else, and that would I defer to counsel. Okay. I will accept the punt. But just as, I guess, a clarifying statement, one, I have been following this dog kennel thing, I think, for three years. We've been trying to find a solution, and I think we have to do this in some form or fashion. Two, I would have preferred to keep all the Lexington parking money within the Lexington parking money in general. I think it should have been theirs to begin with. They should have had it. They should have been forward. That being said, if there were one reason to take it out, this would be a good one for a one-time use to get it done, to finish a project, pay for it in cash. I do get nervous about our bond capacity moving forward and how much money we continue to borrow to spend on things. I don't think it's wise. And so in this case, I think I'm supportive of the original motion to use parking facility money while I'm sympathetic to wanting to spend less to spend more on the projects. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I'm going to put my council member Fred Brown's hat on. If you can pay for it, pay for it. So I would recommend we pay cash for it if we got the money and you got it in your budget to do it then bond something that we can bond for something down the road more important. I think if we got the cash I support that we go on and pay for it. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. My question is, this says it's additional funds. What is the total project cost for the K-9 facility? More than 1.2. More than 1.2. That's okay. That's all right. We have bids in the 1.1.1.5, and so we were trying to have a budget of 1.2 in order for any unforeseen circumstances. So, and this $600 would? Would be added to about. Would make the 1.2? Yes. There's about $650, $640 that's available now, and then this would be added to that balance. I'm just throwing this out, and I know you can't answer it, but what happens if the project ends up costing more than the 1.2? Where do those funds come from? We would have to come back. We don't think we will at this budgeted amount. We've had lots of people look at it. She's going to tell you, it ain't no way. we're finished uh we're finished we have i have gone through this you know three times and when somebody told me the first bid that it was 1.2 i said there's no way you know so we have gone at every site we can go to at everything we will cut back on the size if this thing goes past one two okay because obviously if you're taking this is a one-time money so yes we are not going any higher i give you my word okay is this being built on our own property yeah it's being built on our own property okay all right thanks thanks you cast member gibbs council member brown just wondering uh if we did bond this would be a fifteen thousand dollar debt service on it do you need to make a proposal where that would come from or yes sir my proposal for the debt service payment uh would be from the parking fund from where the instead of using it all just use you know use portion of it to pay the debt service okay for the first two years 60. thank you anybody else on the amendment councilmember stennett i i would just just from brown you say all the debt service payments to come from the parking fund because the problem is you've got to get it accounted for today in this budget, so it normally has to come out of the general fund. It wouldn't be advisable to do it long-term, so that means that parking fund would have to stay there to take debt service. So are you saying that for the initial year debt service fund you couldn't take it from the parking fund? No. We would need a permanent financing source for all of the debt service. 15 first year, 45,000 after that. We've always done that through the general fund where there's recurring revenues. Parking balance does not have recurring revenues. I imagine that the way we're going to use the public parking fund is to transfer it into general fund anyway to start using it. So I would think we would have the flexibility to be able to do that, not for ongoing costs, but this initial first-year cost. And just like any other bondable project, we would just have to identify funding for future years when creating future budgets. And I'll finish my comment. Councilmember, or Commissioner O'Mara, how many years did you anticipate bonding if we were to go that route? That was based on 20 years. So we're going to pay $900,000 for this $600,000 we could pay cash today. That just doesn't make, to me, a lot of sense when we have the cash today to do it. So I appreciate your motion, but to pay an extra $300,000 on this project, we're already paying interest on money that's been sitting there for three years, and we should have spent it three years ago. So I'm just ready to get this project moved on with cash. Thank you. Thank you. I didn't know if my recognitions would be the other thing. Thank you. I want to see if anybody else is interested in speaking to the amendment, and then I'll come back to Council Member Brown. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I promise I won't stay on the mic too much longer today. I think bonding this project does a few things. I think it gives council members an opportunity to make requests from that parking fund to fund some of their projects and some of their initiatives, whether it's for their district or for the whole city. if what has been identified to us as a council as flexibility in this budget is this fund. And if we gut this fund now, then the budget discussions are pretty much over. So I think bonding gives us that flexibility. I think the additional flexibility is the flexibility in cost. Even though we feel like we got the number pinned down, the cost on this building as we've seen with this facility as we've seen with other facilities fluctuates. And if it was bonding or if it was a bonded project, the time that, you know, we approve it and the bonds actually sell, we may have, it may be some flexibility there to cover the increase or maybe absorb the decrease in cost of it. And then the other reason that I made the amendment is I am sensitive to the parking authority's loss of revenue from the recent land transaction. I think that if we can bond this project and actually give other council members an opportunity to fund projects and potentially maybe even address their loss of revenue, I think that would be a win-win for everyone. So that's the reason I made the amendment and would hope that other council members would consider supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else to speak to the amendment? Excuse me, Vice Mayor. Council Member Worley. Thank you very much. Just to echo Council Member Brown's comments and to go a little bit further, this goes back to some of my original comments about being deliberate about how we think about using this money. I think what he talks about of flexibility goes into that deliberation and to take it out in one fell swoop, we really eliminate and restrict ourselves as we go through the rest of this process. And there's a lot that we could do with this money. Again, whether any goes back to the parking authority or not, there's a lot of good projects that can be paid for where the immediate cash infusion will make a more immediate effect. And then bonding, we can do long-term financing on this big project. I absolutely support this project 100%. We need this, but construction is a great use of bonding authority and bonding power, and I just believe that that's the more appropriate use to give us flexibility and to allow us to be more deliberate in how we use that money. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on the amendment? If not, please vote electronically. One more vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That would bring us back to the original motion as amended. Is there further discussion? I'm sorry, I can't see the... Okay. Council Member Farmer, are you still in line? I think after that motion, my question is moot. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Evans? I think I agree with Councilmember Farmer. I think I'm okay. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett? The motion, as it's on the floor, is taking the debt service out of the public parking corporation funds. I can't support taking it out of there, so I'll amend it and take the money out of the general fund balance, which is approximately $100,000 right now, and our staff can update us on the exact number. But the $15,000 needs to come out of there and not the public parking corporation money because it's not a long-term revenue source, as our commissioner has already stated. I'm sorry, but just for clarification, the motion as amended is to bond. But he didn't say where the money's coming from, and the way it's worded on our screen is from the Public Parking Corporation. I believe that's not the intention of the motion. Can we clarify? The motion as amended, as I understand it, is that this would be a bonded project, and the funding would come from the general fund, as the commissioner has said is the standard procedure. If I've misunderstood the intention or what other people understand, let's get it clarified. No, that's correct. All right, I'm good. Council Member Bledsoe. I just have to speak one more time on this. I can absolutely not support bonding this project at a cost of $300,000 additional. I don't think that's wise and I don't think that's being a very good steward of these resources. And I would be very, urge my colleagues to be very considerate of that decision. Thank you. Anybody else on the motion as amended? If not, I would like an electronic vote on this motion as amended. I need a 13th vote badly. Who's not in? That vote reflects failure of the motion. We'll move to the next item. Thank you Vice Mayor. Under Public Safety once again, the police have asked for an additional speed trailers or speed spies. Our link recommended leaving it up to the police department as to which one they purchased, They have requested, due to the number of council members that routinely request those in their districts, so they have asked for another $25,000. We want to take it from the Public Safety Fund. Again, due to the popularity in council members' districts, they need additional equipment. So moved. Motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. And Vice Mayor, I know some people are asking me on a motion to reconsider for the K9 facility, the prevailing side I believe would have to do that whoever voted to bond it. I did not, so. That's correct. If someone wants to vote to ask for reconsideration of the previous vote, you would have to be on the prevailing side to ask for that. council member massadi i believe i was on the prevailing side so i'd like a motion to reconsider that we take the money for the canine let me make sure i do this correctly um additional funds for the new canine facility be taken from the public parking corporation so moved second thank you i have a motion and a second to uh vote to i believe procedurally we need to vote first whether to reconsider or not and i believe the vote for to reconsider i need some guidance is is that a majestic simple majority vote or is that a is that um similar to are suspending the rules and needs 10 votes. I guess Marina is voting to reconsider. So I guess I need to do that. That was premature. Simple majority. Let's roll 4.407. Let's see here. It looks like it's just a regular majority. I don't see a super majority in there. So the motion on the floor is to reconsider the vote on number 16. If I can have an electronic screen, all in favor, please. I'm sorry. I've got a question. Can we reconsider that? Since we never actually voted on that motion, we voted on an amended motion. What we're voting to reconsider would be the amended motion, and then there can be discussion and further amendments or further proposals. What we're voting on is the amended motion? Yes. reconsider the amendment that's my understanding that we have to what we're voting is to reconsider the motion as amended basically it puts the issue back on the table so we can discuss it further what i recorded as what i thought was the motion was to reconsider funding the canine facility from the public parking corporation funds yeah that's not what we vote so i believe i believe that that motion is not in order and that the only motion that's in order is to reconsider that that motion as it was stated and i so i apologize i should have recognized that but the motion if there's a motion to reconsider it needs to be to reconsider the motion as it was amended so would you be glad to so i'd like to make a motion to reconsider the funding canine facility from the public parking funds oh no you voted no the motion to reconsider the previous motion to reconsider my motion on number 16 so moved is there a second to reconsider second i have a motion and a second um discussion on the motion Okay, seeing none, we'll call the vote. So this is now a vote on whether to reconsider. Actually, I think I can do a voice. No, let's do it electronically. Please log in. I could have done a voice. Okay, so now that passes and we are now back to reconsider other people who would like to sign in and discuss the motion. Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll make a motion to amend and approve the K-9 facility coming from the Public Parking Corporation for the $600,000. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? I have people signed up. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So now the question I was going to ask earlier, in the fund 4161, what was the original amount of that fund before the proposed budget? Because there was an original amount there, and some of it was administered in the proposed budget before we come to what the balance is today. I just want to hear it. I want to hear it. I'll look it up. Home alone. It was around 1.2. and change. Was it one and the administration used the difference? That's what I'm after. It's what's a million three ninety eight five oh two in the mayor's proposed budget we proposed using seven hundred and fifty thousand. To what use or what purpose for the 750? That was the funding for the homeless fund funding for 2019 all right thank you very much thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember Evans I guess I'd like to go back to the very beginning because again this is being recorded and the public's gonna see that we're discussing six hundred thousand dollars for a kennel so can we be very clear about what the need is because I didn't hear the full extent of $600,000 being used for kennels and how many animals are there what are the true needs reason for this and because I'm not sure I'm fully educated on on what this is because i i can just hear people yelling at the screen about 600 000 being used for kennel repair i'll speak to that as best i can the kennel itself houses anywhere from 15 to 20 dogs we do allow our brother and sister law enforcement agencies to kennel lawyer dogs there on occasion for instance we've been in discussions with the sheriff's office in regards to that as well the kennel as it stands right now has been in operations since at least the 70s if not the 60s it's been renovated over time but at this it's just deteriorated to the point that it no longer serves the function both as its general structure but also for its size one of the things that we're taking consideration as well is the trail will be coming down through there which will significantly impact the operations of the canine center so the thought of moving it was a concern the whole time as well luckily after a number of years of reviewing different proposals and locations we were able to determine that our own property would be the best route to go and rather than rent it would be better for us to actually own the facility thank you for that um so you're saying that other i guess neighboring counties might be housing animals there not counties our brother and said here in fayette county here in fayette county for For instance, there were discussions at one time, and I'm not tying those entities to the kennel necessarily because there's discussions about that. But ultimately, there are other law enforcement agencies in Fayette County that have canines as well. The Sheriff's Department does, the airport does, I think UK does, but I think they handle their own kenneling. Okay, so in the spirit of cooperation, are they providing any funds to this, or is there a way to discuss their input, their financial input? We also, just as a side note, what happens here is whenever they come, whenever we have outside training or we have training here, the kennels will also be filled up temporarily as it were whenever those law enforcement agencies come in to train and that's just on a temporary basis. It will also provide us the ability to have on-site vet care which saves a lot of money, saves a lot of time, we can actually pre-schedule it so the facility itself and I believe CAO Hamilton said this earlier, but the cost that we're talking about today is a max. If we have to downsize it in some way, we'll do that. But part of the facility that we appreciate is the opportunity to expand it in the future if needed as well. So this facility, God willing, would be able to serve us for another 50 years like the one has up to this point. Again, I think this is something the public might be more concerned about and understanding we have canines but again how how often are they used every night every night and every day our canine units are used they're they're available to the police department and well i guess i was i wasn't finished but i guess all the general information about you know how we are using using that whole unit and um what are they they're being used for because again i'm not so sure the the average citizen is they don't see them every day you know so again are we creating the problem by having the trailers their way to move it you know is it something to is new construction completely needed or is it more could it be a renovation project I guess I don't know I just need more information maybe about the whole thing period before I'm even willing to I don't feel like I have enough information to decide a $600,000 I guess is maybe my concern in general and then again are there other agencies that should be fees I guess are we are we charging other agencies appropriately is there a way to I guess regain I would have to look into that but there's been discussions about different circumstances where that may be present. Okay. I think I'd just like to know more about that in general. So thank you. My time's up. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to make a point that I, you know, I reconsidered or voted in support of reconsider because I support this project. I support this project as a bond project, though. I think that, you know, when we're looking at some of the budget requests and needs of our districts and our city, not all the requests are bondable projects but this one is a bondable project so i support the project and hopefully other council members will support it as a bondable project so we can have the flexibility to address some of our other needs and i guess i would like to ask bill omera he might not want to answer the question but if you knew what the cost was and you knew what the total scope of work was going to be before you went into the budget process would this would y'all have recommended this project as a bondable project or would you have paid or would you have recommended to pay cash for it if you knew it when you went into the budget process well you're asking me to recreate history and at one time we were talking about incorporating in the budget a lease payment over 20 years in a future budget so that was one of the things we were evaluating as a possibility and we were also evaluating what a true cost of a new construction build would be and we have 600 and close to 650 available and found that it was short now if you ask me would I rather bond a project and use cash no sir Yes, that's a bad part. But I'll stick. Yeah, I learned that. But I guess my point is still the same, is that we have some budget requests that we would like to make. and not all of them are bondable, but this one is, and it will still give us the flexibility to do some other things. So I support this project as a bondable project. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Sardi. I appreciate the levity, Council Member Brown kind of breaks it up a little bit. CAO Hamilton, if you wouldn't mind. Obviously, in your words, as you would say, this is a big deal. She wouldn't have sent us the memo saying that we need to do this. So can you expound on that? Because I think everyone up here supports it. It's just how we're going to pay for it. So you're on. Do you want me to talk about the kennels in general? Sure, if you would, in the situation it is. And just so, again, the public understands what we're dealing with. I have some very, very strong feelings about this kennel. We pay a lot of money for these dogs. These are not the kind of dogs that I have or you have. Right. These are very expensive animals that work all night. Most of it is drug dogs. They are very, when I have gone out there to that kennel and looked myself, it is a different situation from anything we see every day. These are high-strung animals. What we have got is we have got these animals in a very small, confined space. In the winter, they get water on them and they ice. They are so high strung that they will get their noses and they rub up against the fencing and they'll rub those noses just dry because they're so high strung. It is a situation that we really, really need to correct. Also, with the trail, it would be totally dangerous, and I'm giving you my opinion, it would be totally dangerous to have that trail coming over there close to those kennels. It's just not the kind of setting that you want with a trail and with these very, very high-strung working dogs. Okay, then I'll ask the second question then, because this is such a priority, and everyone's mind's up here. When you were discussing this at budget time, you just felt that bonding it was not the option. Okay. Bill gave his thing, and as Council Member Brown said, it backfired. Now, I'm going to give you mine. Go ahead. You know, I'm bondable Sally. I came from the state. I came from the state, and that's what we did. Okay. So my first thing is to go to bonds all the time. I would have, Bill kept coming at me if I had known that I kept wanting to spend the rest of the parking authority money because I had various things I thought we could do with it. All of them were continual funding, though. They weren't one-time funding. And Bill was on me all the time was the fact of, you're going to back this council and the next council into a problem. And that problem is going to come on us next year. Because we already used some one-time funding for some things that we've got to do. And Council Member Evans already commented on the fact that we took $750,000 out of this parking authority to fund the homeless, which is our continuous obligation. So next year we're $750 short right off the bat. So I would have, my natural inclination would have gone to bond it. That's what my natural inclination to do. I do think he is right. I think that we ought to use, and no disrespect to Council Member Brown, but I do think that we ought to use that cash if that cash is available, because we're going to run into trouble next year. So I guess my point is to the public that this is a dire situation, basically, for these animals. I mean, it's just unacceptable in the conditions they are now to live this way. It is unacceptable because they're not pets. They are working for the public. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. That's all, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Farmer, are you? I'm sorry. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was going to float a compromise that I'll make a motion to amend this, that we use $300,000 from the parking fund and bond the other $300,000. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to amend the motion so that half the $300,000 is bonded and $300,000 comes from the public parking corporation. A discussion on the motion? Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Because this was in our link, I want to bring up an issue, and I wasn't going to go there today, but since some people are so, let's say, needing some assistance in their neighborhoods, Melissa, can you tell us about the public safety fund and why we need to keep $960,000 in there? Because that is money that can only be spent on police operations. and our link looked at that as possible using it but I think there's maybe some issues with that going forward because that's $20 we get from every state case that goes through our court system we get it each year so that's not a lot of money though you know it's what 250,000 a year and we've built it up to 960. Right we get about $250,000 a year in revenue and a couple of years ago we had been transferring $200,000 over. A couple of years ago we realized it had a balance and so we started transferring $300,000 a year over to the general fund from the public safety fund. So at that rate we're going to run out of that money and then in several years, a few years, we're going to need to find general fund or other money to supplement where we've been using that money. So if we didn't have that there that would happen a little sooner. And how many years did you project that out? I'm not certain on how many years it would be. And, you know, the revenue depends. We estimate $250. It could be more, it could be less. It depends on the number of tickets and stuff. Okay. So I just want my colleagues to understand that fund and that if we were to take the money out of there, then two, three years down the road you're going to have to find additional revenue in the budget to fund police because some of this money each year is transferred to the general fund to fund police. So just pointing out there, we want to have a full discussion on where to get the money. I can't support bonding it at all because we have cash, obviously, in a couple pockets in our budget that we can actually use for. So just food for thought. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I learned something today I thought I never learned, is Sally Hamilton found dogs more expensive than her dogs. That would have thought. But to go back to her point and to say that Bill O'Mara says next year is not going to be fun, and to sit there and cut this thing in half, we're still going to have the same problem next year. So I just didn't pay cash, and I'm not going to support this bond in either. So I asked my colleague, you just heard what Bill O'Mara, what Sally said, how important these dogs are, and how important it is to this community. and we have cash now, and I can't tell you what's going to happen next year, and it's not going to be good. But that's the only thing I can say. But after hearing any bond like this, it's not a smart thing to do right now. So I ask that we go on and prove this, especially when Sally said how important these dogs are. I think we need to go on and do the $600,000 with their recommendation. Thank you. I see nobody else signed on. So just for clarification, did he say, Council Member Gibbs, did he say public safety fund or the public parking fund? Public parking fund, I believe. What we have is a public parking fund. That's up on the screen. That's what the motion is. $300,000 from public parking and $300,000 as a bond. Further discussion? This is, I'm sorry, Council Member Lamb. So when we were talking about $600,000, and this is for the record, if Mr. Romero would come to the podium, we were talking about $600,000. If we bonded that, over the course of the number of years, it would be $300,000. So basically we're still talking about $150,000 cost for bonding $300,000, I believe. Maybe Councilmember Stenet is the one. So. So $300,000 would cost about $450,000 over time, approximately. Okay. Well, I have to say that I support this project, but I also know that when it's costing us more money, I just think that it's better to use the cash, too. And so I can't support bonding this project. I just can't. So, thank you. All right, Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Let's see, Sally, I had a question for you. I'm trying to understand this fund and the parking that we've got, because I listened to Mr. Frazier this morning, and it sounded like it was a mistake. Can you explain that more? Yes, you remember we talked about this when we did our budget retreat. We did the parking. we transferred the parking garages over to the parking authority in, I think, in 2012, if I'm not mistaken, in 2012. And what we did was we looked at what kind of fixed assets we had, you know, and so we transferred. We did not look at, and Bill, you correct me if I misspeak, we did not look at assets in general, okay? And so Councilmember Henson about this year said, I want you all to look at all your funds and give us that report. You remember that report? Bingo. Out pops this report, and we see that the public parking authority has, or this public parking corporation, has $1,380,000 in it. Well, bad on us, because, and I take full responsibility. Bad on us, because what we should have done is we had that money sitting there all this time and never knew it until this question was asked. So here we come up with this $1.380 million. So we go to Jim Frazier and we tell him this situation, because he's filed a thing with the Secretary of State that said no assets. So he's got a bad filing that we have to correct. He says, and, you know, we really, that money is ours, or we need to at least share it with you. And so we have a wonderful relationship with Jim and a wonderful relationship with the parking authority. I told him that there was no way we were going to give him $1.38 million. I didn't think, because we needed it in this particular budget. So we sort of backed off and started talking about, you know, the half of it or so. I also made the statement to him that at the time I was totally up front with him and he was up front with me. At the time in 2012, I would have never advised you all to give, to pass to them $1,380,000. Because we would have brought it to you, though, and it would have been your decision. But that's where we are. And I easily understand his point. We have been on a very much of an agreement, all been very nice about this. So that helps. So it is there. So, okay. I was trying to understand how we got to that point. Uh-huh. This was something we did not pick up. We did have it. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. And just quickly, I want to highlight one thing that I want to make sure people understand, which is in the UK land swap deal, you know, the parking authority is getting gypped a couple hundred thousand dollars a year moving forward if that happens. And we did that really without their understanding, knowledge, or consent. And we haven't. So I'm just saying, but it is out there. If that goes forward, that is going to be a reality we're going to have to deal with, and they're going to have to deal with at some point. That's just a recognition. And then, two, if we don't spend this money this way, we can take out the $750 for homelessness and put it in a different pot and then take out other items that are in the mayor's proposed budget to make up for that. I mean, what we're basically deciding is we have this much money, and what's the best priority for our city? Period. And if we're going to not say it's homelessness or not say it's a dog kennel, it's other things in the budget we could take out to do other fun projects. this is that conversation that I think is really hard when there's limited funds. And we're going to have more limited funds moving forward. I mean, this is as tight as it's been the last couple of years, and it is nowhere near as tight as it's going to be moving forward. Thank you. Thank you. I have nobody else signed up. So the motion is to amend the motion that's on the floor. So this is a vote on the motion as amended to take 300,000 from the public parking fund and 300,000 from the bond fund. Please log in with your vote. Just one more vote. Thank you. Is that me? That vote reflects failure of the motion. That brings us back to the original motion as unamended. Further discussion on the motion? Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This, if there's a reverse to a nickel holding up a dime, this is it. I think that different from part of the conversation we've had, I think it's important for us to support each other and have a little elasticity and a little opportunity. And in this instance, for this amount of money at this time in the conversation, I'm wondering if it might not be wise for us to table number 16 and reconsider it as number 38, so that we can look at some other opportunities and return to this after we have considered the rest of the ones on this page up to number 21 and the individual council ones up to number 37 and then reconsider this as number 38 that may not even get a second but i'm gonna make the motion to table have a motion and a second thank you to table item number 16 and make it item number 38 uh any discussion on the motion council member stinnett i appreciate councilman farmer your point but you know that's the i asked the vice at the beginning of this whole discussion today are we going to go in order and vote as we go and everyone agreed to do that so now we're trying to change the rules because it it doesn't suit us now and we want to we want to be able to get to the money and i warned this would happen and so now we're trying to change it mid-course and some people have already got their stuff at their link and they fought for and others have it and that's just the nature of the beast i think there's money here to do both with some creative ideas and i won't support your motion to table to the end because again we're going in order we committed to doing that at the beginning of this conversation today i asked the question where i was told we're going to go in order so i won't support that thank you council member evans um councilman's members you're correct we did vote to do that But I do think that I feel like we've come to an impasse on this one, and we are being held up for whatever reason, right, wrong, indifferent. I think the discussion is, it's worthy, it's valuable, it needs to be had. But I don't think anyone's prepared to vote on this one right now. So that would be my reason for supporting the motion because we are being held up by this when I think it's obvious people need more time to think about this one. You're right. We have this discussion on how we're going to do this every year. Every year. But again, I feel like this one, we made our best attempt. But I do feel like we're just at an impasse right now, so I would support the motion to table and allow us to just come back to it. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Okay, I just have a point of clarification on this process. So the motions that we're making today will come back around on another list, and then we will vote in totality, or is this the final end all? This is not the final end all. All of this will come back to the council as a completed package, and at that time there's opportunities to amend. Thank you for that clarification. Further discussion on the motion? The motion is to table 16 and make it number 38. Please make your votes known electronically. That vote reflects passage of the motion. And so I want to talk about, yeah. So there's a question about procedure. We can either take a break and try and finish up before 1 o'clock with as much as we can. I gather that we need a break. Yes. So, council members, can we take a very short break, five minutes, come back, try and finish up our work by one o'clock? No objection, we stand in recess for five minutes. Courage council members to return. See if we can get everybody in the room. All right. Council members. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay, I think we have a quorum, if not every single, I think everybody's in the room. Before we continue, just in terms of procedure to let council know and everybody else, We have a meeting scheduled for June 5, which would be the final time when we could finish up this work. We need to be out of this room at 1 o'clock because for better or worse, I have committed to the Planning Commission that they would have this space for the two zone change hearings that they have scheduled this afternoon. We were scheduled to go until noon. We'll finish as much as we can and I believe we can then complete that work on June 5 unless there's objection. And I've also been advised that we cannot use the caucus room because this meeting is noticed as being in chambers. Council Member Lamb. Okay, so if we don't get through the whole list, then the rest of it will be taken up on June 5th? Yes. Okay. We'll complete the list, and then we can go take the whole thing as a package. Okay. I think the next item is still public safety. I'm sorry. Environmental quality and public works, sir. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you for that break. Let's see. So our link was myself and Council Member Gibbs, Council Member Joe Smith. We had some really productive meetings with so many professionals across government and a lot of great work there. Just really four recommendations here for the council's consideration. And more or less what I would call our rank order of most importance, working our way down with different subject matter. First is in the Division of Environmental Services, which if you note on the page preceding here, on page 107, this is for cost share for hazardous street tree removal. And we have an enhanced respect for our urban canopy, and we're working very hard to repopulate it. But one of the things about repopulating that is getting rid of some very dangerous trees that are out there. And in this current budget year, we're oversubscribed, I think, by 50-something trees already. Susan Pluger, would you join me at the podium, please? So this is something you administer directly, and this was your kind of conversation point to us during the link meeting about the difference between what was prescribed and what is needed in terms of the street tree replacement program. Yes, we have currently exhausted our funds for this current fiscal year by removing 163 hazardous trees. For the coming fiscal year, we already now have a waiting list of 64. So we've gone up by 11 in the last two weeks. And you can see, as you notice, as the trees leaf out, particularly the large trees, you will notice the ones that aren't leafing out. So the issues really are with our pin oaks and with the ash trees primarily. And without the cost share, we're only left with the ability to remove the tree and place a lien on the property. Is that not correct? Correct. Well, we would do citations to get the property owner to remove the tree with 100% of their own funds. And if they did not do so in the appropriate amount of time, then we would abate the hazard and then attempt to recoup the money through a lien. Thank you very much. So in our discussions as a link, this is brought forward as a recommendation just to take $55,000 from the fund balance, which I believe at this time during the course of this meeting we've spent about $6,500 of that, and we've added back about $30,000 is what I get. and we have the ability to spend still about $135,000 or somewhere in that. I'm asking the person who's chewing the hardest. You're saying it? I'm sorry, what was the question? No, I'm really talking to Teresa Grider, not yourself, because we've taken a couple of swipes and changed the fund balance a little bit. We also added back to it by eliminating a couple of positions, so we still have about $135,000 or so to work with. There is currently, after everything that was approved before the break, there's still $129,757. That's what I'm after. Thank you very much. So with that in mind, and on behalf of the length, I would move to take $55,000 out of the fund balance to pursue the additional funds for the Hazardous Street Tree Cost Share Program as requested by the tree board, so moved. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Council Member Stennett? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Theresa, I think we started today with 136, correct, in fund balance? Correct. And we took $30,000 out for the workforce money. Basically, what we have done is we have found funds to offset the funds that are being added to the budget. $30,000 additional funds were added when the abolishment of the two council positions was approved. 789. And then the deputy coroners offset that. So that added another $30,197 back to that original $135. Okay, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Council Member Stinnett? No. Anybody? Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Next item. Thank you, sir. This one is highlighted on page 108. We maintain we, despite all the wonderful work going on across the county adding fiber optic capability for for the citizenry, we still have to maintain about 30 miles of fiber optic cable of our own that services the needs of the government and keeps it connected as it were unto itself so that all parts can communicate. As you can see here, the network infrastructure only supports some of that. And what they're asking for here is the ability, the amount of $30,000 for maintenance to that fiber optic net that is ours to help us connect ourselves for police and fire senior citizen center the psoc and it says lyric theater here so this is another one that's brought forward unanimously from our our link that would potentially take another thirty thousand dollars out of fund balance which i would make that motion on behalf of the link so moved i have a motion and a second Any discussion on the motion? Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a question about what kind of repair and maintenance is required. You know, fiber optic infrastructure is fairly new and underground. I'm just wondering what that money would be spent on. Chef Neal, welcome. As was said earlier, this is about 90 miles of fiber optic cable throughout Lexington. Lots of things can happen in the environment. Yesterday you knew there was a power outage for about 6,000 customers, 3,000 customers for KU due to a squirrel. Squirrels like fiber too. We've had several instances where squirrels will bite through the fiber and we have to replace sections of it, among other things. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. So Jeff, you don't have any other money in your budget for this type of maintenance? It wasn't put in the mayor's proposed budget? is the only money you're going to have um through the process i kind of overlooked it and uh it was went through the links process i brought it back up for discussion so so where have you been paying for it in the past uh last year it was we had thirty thousand dollars put into mineral severance uh i think at this meeting and we've we've used that this year okay thank you thank you Thank you. Nobody else has signed up to speak, take an electronic vote on this. Wow. Thank you all very much on behalf of them and our link. That motion reflects, that vote reflects passage. Next item. All right. This is also in traffic engineering. And, you know, a lot of things go on in government about when a position is there and when it's filled and how it's filled and if there's somebody helping or somebody working around on it, how it's looked at. In the conversation we had at our link, there's an associate traffic engineer that is specifically over the neighborhood traffic management section, which this person, when employed in that capacity, or whomever is employed in that capacity, spends a lot of time in individual conversation with the neighborhoods that we all represent, where we're trying to take care of specific traffic engineering problems. In the administration looking at this, it appeared to them that this job had been left unfilled when, in essence, the division had used an intern to fill it for a while. Mr. Director, if you would, please. Just give us a little background on this, please. Yes, we had kind of a unique opportunity in our division. A lady that was filling the spot for the last 15 years had some issues going on and found out she could retire early. And so she gave us a two-weeks notice and was gone. So since November 1st, that position was empty. In the meantime, we had hired a part-time student at UK, which is a program we were trying to build up, who was an engineering student. And we found out she was getting ready to graduate in December. In addition to that, she was also a National Guard person, and so she received her butter bar, her second lieutenant stripes in December. And she basically needed a job until she left for training in May. And we thought we got this spot that she can fill for a fraction of the cost and just let her do that job, and we wouldn't fill the position for a few months. And in the meantime, it got chopped. Was my description of what this job does and the importance it has between traffic engineering and individual neighborhoods correct? In that there's a lot of work that this person does do in terms of signage and conversation and communication with individual neighborhoods for traffic management? Yes, they just handle the handicap parking program that we do in residential areas. Last year they took about 200 requests for handicap parking, about 250 general parking requests in neighborhoods. And among that, they're also, you know, for the, it's all time consuming. You have to kind of vet what the residents are saying versus what's in reality. So you basically have to visit every site and figure out what's going on. And sometimes we just take requests and evaluate the whole neighborhood. So that position would be doing this in addition to a lot of safety. We'd like to do some more safety initiatives, be proactive with that. But there's some signage requirements through the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices that we need some extra help with that also, and this person would help with that. So your original person is gone, I guess now that your intern is gone too? Yes. So who's doing this work right now, if anybody? It's being filled. Well, it's we're covering it as best we can with the people we have. There's Roger Mulvaney's in that section. Then we have another engineer who's also doing the work and one technician. So we're still, you know, underhanded or down by 30% in that section. So if there is the ability for the administration to have looked at this as a position that looked empty and was being filled by an intern, but as one that you have had actively as a position under your direction for years, I would say, I don't know. At least 15 years. All right. Thank you very much. I'm extremely hesitant to add a job back because of the amount of money involved and the situation that we're in. However, I think there's a demonstrated need and a potential opportunity for service here if the council agrees. And this may be an item that we might defer to. but for now, on behalf of the link, I need to make a motion to reappropriate the associate traffic engineer in the neighborhood traffic management section that was abolished that is number 20 on our list. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I appreciate all the work, Jeff, your group does. obviously it's a big issue for our city and it's probably one of the top three complaints we get in our council offices but my question is have we looked at possibly using prior employees and contracting them back on a temporary basis their professional services contract then hiring a full-time position it seemed like to me what you were describing was more coming it comes in spurts a lot some of that and could we ever handle that I know we've done it before years ago. It's probably been eight, nine, ten years ago. Can we do that now? Is there someone out there who's retired that could help us who may know some of this? Or every engineering firm has a traffic division. And it seems like, you know, to add a full position back may not be the best timing for us. Was there an alternative if we say no? I would say for this particular position, it's more, it doesn't really come in spurts, but it's more of a like a chronic thing that just keeps rolling in all the time and if you don't get to them they just stack up and then when we don't get to it in a certain amount of time then generally council starts hearing from it about it and did you ask for this in the budget as well actually i didn't know to ask for it because it was a field position when um when we filled out our budget so you're okay so that's why you did but you needed it it was it was a surprise to me okay all right very good thank you thank you councilmember sotty thank you vice mayor um i certainly understand your concern councilmember farmer as we all share that but there's no money so how we out of the general fund we are at we can't even fund this position am i correct with the items that have been approved the balance that currently remains is $44,757. So we're short by $30,000 for this, and this is a recurring position, so unless you have an alternative source of funding, it's not there. That's all, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think this is my top two issues that our district gets in terms of traffic and wanting to have someone from the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan talk to them about traffic calming, signs. I mean, it goes on and on and on. Those are not small requests. They take a lot of hand-holding by the members of our department. So in that sense, I would absolutely want to see this funded. I don't think we can fund it this year through this mechanism as a recurring cost. However, I think we have got to find a way to increase that capacity moving forward. And it has a very high priority, at least from my perspective, terms of meeting citizens engagements and their needs i think it's very very important thanks thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor i actually will echo what councilmember bledsoe and what councilmember mazotti said again this is it's a it's a recurring cost again and if you're going to take it out of this amount of money then where does it come the next year uh so i have to i'm like fred brown on the bonding you know i'm going to be that on the recurring cost this year this this budget but uh i do totally understand and value the importance of this because we have we i don't know i bet you we rank right at the top of how many we requests we send as far as neighborhood requests to your office i mean i'm sure we do we have a very very active group of neighborhoods that are always having traffic problems. Is this the only, the associate traffic engineer position, is that a one position, or do you have multiple associate traffic engineer positions? We have two associate traffic engineer positions in our division. The other one does primarily street lighting. Okay. So you have two, and then you're asking for this one? No. No. You have two, and one of those is this? Yes, that's correct. Okay. One of them was chosen to be abolished through the FY19 budget. Okay. Okay. All right. I also can speak very kindly to having had the experience of having worked in this government and having had your budget, your people cut 50%. And it's not fun, and it's not easy. But sometimes when we're put to the task, we often find ways to manage things in a way that we would have not otherwise found. So if this doesn't move forward, it's not that we don't understand the need, but I would urge you to look at other ways that you can make up the difference for this. It's the proverbial thinking outside of the box. So just so you know that I'm in favor of what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure I can support it because of the recurring costs. And thank you. Thank you. Councilman Maloney. Thank you. My question is, was anybody in this position when you were doing your budget? No, no one was in the position, but we had the student doing the work of the position. So it appeared to be a vacant position. We had vacant since November, and I'm sure if you take a broad brush, that's a good position to do away with. But in reality, we actually had someone doing the work. Just to give you a little bit of a concern I have, it sounds like it's been vacant for a while, because it's vacant and when I'm because I knew the lady that and she did a tremendous job and all that but just a learning experience not just for you but for all folks across the government when a tie budget time comes and you have a position that's vacant you know these I don't mean to say it in a bad way but these are like sharks and they see that word vacant they're gonna eat that thing up and I know how important that she did that job and all that it's just the thing that i have got to be is we got to be have a little bit better make sure we save those jobs that are very important and and and i'm just giving it just from because i've been there i've had some positions that i but they're like sharks they're kind of back and things so i don't know how you're going to get next year you may have to request it because right now as i say you're sitting here with 44 000 and this position pays well more over than the 45. i i know i know how important because i know the lady that had the job she helped me on some issues and i thought and i understand where you're coming from but i've been in your shoes i have felt and nothing against you guys but you all are sharks and that's just but i understand what you got to do you have to do your job and one time you see something baking you're going to eat it up but i just don't know how you get around this one i don't mean to be but it's just and i i'm just saying i don't know how you get around and that's why i can't support something and i just think that the learning experience for everybody who's the director or commissioner or anything that you better be when you got a vacant job you better and you know me and you talk about i just unless unless i'm out of order unless it's strictly a budgeting issue for the fiber maintenance I can that's $30,000 this the position is more important to me I can find the fiber maintenance money in another place and get by with that but the job you're saying Wow Wow the fiber maintenance is unpredictable so you say you can make me she can move around it just a job is more important than the maintenance is what you're telling if we'd have taken this position first they would have been I know how important this job is because I've worked with them I just don't know how we're gonna be I mean that we're in a situation right now that once you get hold of it it's hard to bring it back and I don't know I mean maybe we have to hopefully something good comes out in the next six months that we have a surplus or something if we can come back my experience in creating positions has not been very good either so it really hurts to lose a spot. Councilmember Plowman. Thank you Vice Mayor. I was wondering do we obviously this is a band-aid approach here but in terms of having the intern from UK or wherever it was is there an arrangement that we have ongoing that we could for the time being get another intern in from their engineering school? In the new budget we do have funding for a part-time person that's an engineering student that we will definitely look into so we do pay our intern yes okay and so you've got in the budget already for an intern to continue but i guess it's technically a part-time position but yes but it isn't the intern okay well it's good we have that ongoing relationship and cultivate those so thank you thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember farmer this is the most fun i've had all day um Mr. O'Mara, I have a question for you about types and uses of money at this time. You can see that in the next item, there's an accounting line that would potentially use some other types of money to fund the striping for some bike lanes. Would any of those funds be applicable for use in some part or way for this particular associate traffic engineering position? I would think not. Those are one-time monies, projects versus ongoing salaries. Right. I needed that on the record. So, Mr. Neal, what can you do with $30,000? Get somebody for half a year or something? I mean, if we're looking at seven, and I'm assuming from my recollection, the $74,166 is the position and all the benefits. That's correct, yes. I would hate to fund it for half a year. Speak up just a little bit more, please. Was the question funding your position for half a year? You basically threw the $30,000 back, which is fine. What my question now is, can you use that $30,000 with some other funds that you may find or have to produce, the ability to fund this position for half a year with that $30,000 plus something yet to be determined in your office somewhere? My quick math was I was here and there was about $45,000 in fund balance. Would that be right then? We currently have a balance of $44,757. So then if you add the $30,000 back to it, you're at $74,000? $74,757. What is that, good shooting or what? Okay. But it's recurring. It is recurring, but it's been recurring before, too. I mean, it wasn't. All right. All right. Well, I have to amend my own motion. There's a motion. Oh, jeez. Anything else? I guess. Why don't we, oh, jeez. Then the motion here is to add the 74-166 to fund the associate traffic engineer position of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, and that would be funded by removing our action or deferring our action or canceling out our action on number 19 for the $30,000, which would then put just barely enough back in the fund balance to then fund this position. So it's a combo motion to fund the position by undoing our last item for $30,000, replacing it into fund balance and then taking the entire 74 166 out of the fund balance and i believe we are almost chalked then even so this is an amendment to the motion i'm sorry it's on the floor and i have a second discussion on the amendment which is to take the 30 000 it was in 19 and add it with the existing fund balance to get to the 74 166. discussion on the motion All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Let's vote electronically on the amendment. Two more votes. One more votes. Got it. That reflects the passage of the motion. So to the original motion as amended, is there further discussion on the motion as amended? Seeing none, we'll take an electronic vote on the motion as amended. And one more vote, please. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. First, let me thank my colleagues for their ability to change and reorder. That was a wonderful group of votes and motions. Thank you. The last item that is part of the Environmental Quality and Public Works link report out is another item that we spend a lot of time on. There's actually a larger number involved in countywide and trying to provide for more bike lanes. We kind of broke that down to what would be maybe the best ask for us as a link to ask the council. And so, and this really didn't drive to me, and the beautiful part of this is this didn't affect any of the districts that we were on the on the link but we found the importance of adding bike lanes across the city so this is a request literally for a total of a hundred seventeen thousand dollars to add buffered bike lanes on Alexandria Pasadena Malibu and Redding Road and as it says here consistent with the bike ped master plan in order to make this happen and make it work the proposal is to pull 58-5 from the the map fund 1136 and another 58-5 from the coal severance fund fund 1139 and I would so move on behalf of the link thank you motion I'm sorry is a second I have a motion in a second discussion on the motion councilmember stinnett thank you vice mayor I would just point out the same argument we had with the public parking corporation and there are other council members that like to access this fund. To me, pedestrian safety takes precedent over this, and I think pedestrian safety is asking to use some of that coal severance money. So I would not be in favor of doing this one right now. I do think it's important. I know in the past we've used MAP money only. We've used CMAC money. But I don't want to take money away from pedestrian safety that's coming up and funding this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Since these roads aren't in or located in your else districts, how did you come up with the list? That was staff as much as anything else. Staff made the recommendation and we just concurred with it. Wouldn't you like to speak to that? Commissioner? we had a proper conversation however you were not part of it that day glad to have you here today i have a little bit of a map to kind of show and what this is it's a it's it covers i guess three different districts it's a it's a although the basically is one long road um nearly doing the quick math here it's almost eight miles maybe around eight miles so it makes a nice long connection um the you know see if we can get this to work um the way yeah that's perfect looks great so happens when you put an ipad on it so as you can see here it connects uh there yeah it's the the actual the dark part is really where it connects and so there's it crosses three different districts it's not the best this happens when you put it on an ipad sorry um the the plan really it's the timing of this would be to if the money is is allocated use july and august to kind of figure out the best way to do this connection. And we know in some places it would be edge lines and others it'll be by claims and others will be buffer by claims. We would come up with that in again July, August in September. We would go and do public input, really talk with the neighborhoods about those issues. Because again, we know there are some traffic or parking issues. So we'll be trying to make this work the best with the neighbors and with getting a good connection and a good facility and then hope to have final design somewhere around November and then do this in spring of 2019. But again, the part here is if you can see this is a cross the three districts. It really does go quite a long ways again crossing over clays mill, Nicholasville and connecting up to tates creek. So it's a good long connection that staff felt would make a an important part to is one thing that we always hear. You know, we want larger sections that make real real connections and this would do that right so thank you so so the funds being requested would go to just the planning phase of it no with everything so it would be design and construction it's just the process would be that we would again a lot of this is going to be striping um and that's oh that's right it's just striking okay there may be and again this is where we what we would spend july and august doing is really trying to figure out where would it be you know edge line which is you know a much less treatment a bike lane and then are there places where we could do a buffered bike lane buffered bike lanes would be more expensive obviously than an edge line and we try to do as much as we can with paving as that would come along as well thank you councilmember worley Thank you, Vice Mayor. Echoing what Council Member Stenet said, while I support the bike lane projects, and I've had conversations with some of my colleagues, particularly Council Member Gibbs, and I support these projects, I particularly have a pedestrian safety issue that I would like to see addressed with similar monies, and I think that at this time, and given the need of the neighborhoods, that the pedestrian issues would be more adequately addressed at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a plea for this money, $117,000. We put about $12 million paving for the drivers and $117 for the bikers. It isn't very much. Gas prices are going up. It's a health issue for a lot of people. I think we really need to continue with our master plan for biking and to make a plea for this money. Thank you. Thank you. Nobody else? I'm sorry. Council Member Bledsoe. Since Council Member Henson's not here, and the 10th is obviously a good stretch of that land, I think I would just speak up and say that is a very large project and would be desperately needed. from a bike enhancement pedestrian, I guess I wouldn't say pedestrian, it would be non-car use in the city, which would be nice. Those intersections, especially on the Harrodsburg Road and Alexandria and Pasadena is a hot one. That makes me real nervous, bikes crossing it, just to be honest. And yet I feel like if we don't reduce traffic congestion on those exact lanes through there, I get complaints about that area all the time. So we're in kind of a catch-22 in the sense of the best way to make some of those areas better is to reduce traffic on them through bike and other options. That being said, I very much support pedestrian issues as well. But I just wanted to speak up on those and say it does connect a rather large stretch of the Cardinal Valley all the way over through a large swap of land inside New Circle. So, thanks. great thank you i see nobody else signed up we take an electronic vote please oh my gosh Two more council members. All right, all right, all right. Last vote. Is it me? I punched it. I tell you. It's the machine. That vote reflects passage of the motion. And that brings us to the end. That ends our link report. I want to thank the council members for their being so cooperative here, and I want to help as many of you all as I can as we finish up this list. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay. So I believe where that brings us to is when we reconvene on June 5, we'll start with the individual council member reports and requests. we will reconsider number 16 and we will take any further amendments at that time. Is there any further business before we adjourn? Councilmember Lamb. I just have to reiterate what I have said earlier today about recurring costs with the two positions. We have to, I don't know where that money is going to come from in the next fiscal year, And I think that what we're doing is we're binding the next council to a budget. And I'm not speaking, there's a legal way of speaking that. But I just, I have very strong concerns with the fact that we are funding positions that are recurring costs. and i hope that my colleagues will really think long and hard about this before the final vote of this as far as the future implications that this can cause so thank you thank you just before i entertain a motion to adjourn i want to thank everybody who is here today everybody who worked on the links the commissioner and all of the financial people it's been a very good process us so far we look forward to completing this on june 5 and then i'll entertain a motion to adjourn without objection we stand adjourned