Funded by the Department of Human Resources. The first item on the agenda is comment on any matters on today's agenda. Does anyone wish to address the council? Seeing none, we'll proceed to docket approval. I have a motion from Councilmember Ellinger and a second from Councilmember Beard to approve the docket. Councilmember Blues? Thank you, Mayor. I have two items here in one motion. I move to place on the docket for the council meeting to take place on April 10, 2008, an ordinance repealing section 10-14.1 of the Code of Ordinances, which established a farmer's market to be operated by the Health Department and a resolution approving a purchase of service agreement with Lexington Farmer's Market to run a farmer's market in the public right-of-way along Vine Street. The ordinance and resolution are needed because it has been determined that such a market would best be operated under a purchase of service agreement with a non-profit entity such as Lexington Farmer's Market. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Councilmember Blues and a second by Councilmember Beard to amend the docket by adding the agenda item he just described. Any discussion? Seeing none, those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Councilmember Blevins? Thank you, Mayor. Councilmembers, as you know, I've circulated a memo regarding some minor changes to the Sanitary Sewer Fee Ordinance. For the benefit of the public and the audience, we're going to make a minor change to details of the section of the ordinance as well as add a small oversight to the fixed income program to add folks that are on disability. So in that light, I move to place on the docket for the council meeting of April 10, 2008, an ordinance concerning the sewer user fee program to amend Section 16-59C of the Code of Ordinances to provide that the financial assistance program for seniors with annual incomes of less than $25,000 per year is also available to persons who are drawing social security disability and have an annual income of less than $25,000 and to amend Section 16-59.1 to clarify that any customer shall be eligible to participate in only one of the two offered assistance programs and to correct a long-standing clerical error which created duplicate paragraphs. So moved. Thank you, Councilmember Blevins. I have a motion to amend as just described, seconded by Councilmember Gorton. Is there any discussion? Those in favor, then, please say aye. Those opposed, say no. Motion carries. Are there any further proposed amendments to the docket? If not, we have a motion on the floor to approve the docket. If there's no further discussion, those in favor of approving the docket, say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. The next item on the business is the approval of the March 25th summary. Move approval. I have a motion by Councilmember Gorton and a second by Councilmember Lane to approve the summary of the March 25th meeting. Any discussion? Those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. That brings us to budget amendments. Is there a motion? Move approval, Mayor. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember Gorton and a second by Councilmember Ellinger to approve the budget amendments. Any discussion? Those in favor, please say aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now down to the items of new business, and the Chair will entertain motions. I have a motion by Councilmember Blevins and a second by Councilmember Stephens to approve the items of new business. Any discussion? Councilmember James. I make a motion to table item C of new business. That motion is non-debatable. Those in favor of tabling that item, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Motion. No is from Councilmember Stephens? Yes. Is that right? And Gray. And Gray. Motion carries. Any further items with regard, any further motions with regard to the items of new business? Discussion. Councilmember Blevins. Thank you. Is Paula King. Paula, could you come talk to us about HH? We had an interesting discussion in one of the subcommittees, and I wanted to hear what the results of your all's re-review were. Please. Our re-review, basically we did not choose to amend the consolidated plan, but in the mayor's proposed budget, he chose to give the Salvation Army an additional $40,000 out of the general fund. Okay. That's the only question I had. Thanks. You're welcome. Councilmember Ellinger. I guess why, could you come back, Ms. King, please? I'm sorry. That was one of the questions I had. So when we did the review, because we asked you all to look at this issue with Salvation Army, you all decided not to fund them? We did not fund them out of the consolidated plan, but he funded them $40,000 out of the general fund. All right, but those are two different pots of money, right? It is two different pots of money, but what we would have given them out of the consolidated plan, the $40,000, he gave them out of the general fund as a part of their partner agency agreement. An additional $40,000 above what they would have gotten out of their partner agency agreement of $160,000, I believe. But those come from two different sets of money, so when you all did your discussions, you decided that you weren't going to do it because that's separate of what the mayor does in the general fund. It's separate from what you all do. It is separate, but in essence, they will get their money from the general fund of what they would have lost from the consolidated plan. But when we asked you all, we had you go look at what you all were going to do, so I guess that's separate. I think, you know, we're talking about apples and oranges here because we asked you all to look at this for the Salvation Army, and because we're going to deal with the budget, but from the consolidated plan, your all's decision was to not put Salvation Army in there? Our decision was to not open up the consolidated plan again. A great deal of work had gone into that, and it would have meant just revisiting a lot of territory that had already been visited, and we felt like the appropriate thing to do, since the issue was the amount of money that the Salvation Army was to receive, that we would increase that money from $160,000, which is what they would have gotten under the partner agency agreement, to raise that money from $160,000 to $200,000. So while it is two parts of money, I mean, the Salvation Army will be the same kind of agreement that will come to you as a purchase of service agreement rather than agreement through the consolidated plan. And I'm sorry, I step in because it really was an administration decision that Paula was not involved in, so it felt like I did it. Because I think we'd asked if we could have the consolidated, when they go back and redo it, that they were going to come back to us and tell us what they did, and I guess, so they decided, and their committee, they voted against it, or did you all work together in that? The commitment that I made to the council committee that day was that we would revisit the issue. And we have revisited the issue, and we chose not to revise the consolidated plan. Because now we're looking at going to money in the general fund outside of going into the consolidated plan, which is where it's been taken care of now. We've always had problems, as the year before, I think we had $80,000 in there, and then once you fund somebody at a certain level, then they expect that next year. So now when we look at this next year, are we going to look at putting this back in the consolidated plan, or are we going to then come back to the general fund then? Well, as you know, we have an annual budget here, so we will relook at everything again next year. But the other commitment that I made to the committee, if you'll recall, is that I personally will be much more involved in the process next year. We're going to take a look at the way that we make decisions around the consolidated plan. It was originally in a council decision that it be made by staff. So we're going to do a lot of work around the whole CDBG issue before we come back to you next year. I personally feel like we should fund Salvation Army, but I think it should come out of the consolidated plan and not out of the general fund. You still have that right. What's before you is an action item. I understand that. I'm just making my personal feelings public. I understand. Thank you. I think Council Member Myers may have something on this issue. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I wanted to go back to the point that Council Member Edwards, I think, is trying to make, is that in that meeting my motion was to ask the administration, whoever it was that made the decision on the CDBG funding, to go back and look at Salvation Army's application in good faith, because it was said to them that because the application deadline had been moved, they could go ahead and submit an application. So I guess what we're getting at is it sounds like it wasn't really looked at. With respect to CDBG, it was just determined that, yeah, we want to fund them, but it's easier to just do it out of this other pot. In all due respect, we reconsidered what our commitment would be to the Salvation Army. And when you look at their application, certainly they are worthy. They are worthy of more than $200,000. But as you heard, we had to cut a lot of agencies in the recommendation, the mayor's recommendation to the council. So I guess what the question that it begs is, then, anyone else who didn't get funded, do they then come back to the government and ask to be put into the general fund, since they didn't get funded from that pot of money? They do it all the time. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question pertaining to the Salvation Army funding issue? Council Member Stevens. Yes. I understand what's happened, I think. Of course, that was not what the council voted to happen. But I just wanted to remind the council that as far as the Salvation Army is concerned, I would think whether they get their money from one pot or another doesn't make that much difference to them. But this obligates us, if we're going to make our commitment to them, to vote for that part of the budget at least, because today we would determine what happens to the consolidated plan. That's right. Because it has to go to Washington, I guess, next week, along with my taxes. But this means that we have an obligation, perhaps, to uphold that part of the budget at least. $160,000 to $200,000, I think that was, to me, that's a satisfactory solution, if the council maintains its obligation. Thank you. Council Member Blevins. I just wanted to throw in here, too, I think the motion was pretty clear to reconsider them with respect to the application having been received as if it was whole and good. That's right. And it was to be weighed against the other equally probably worthy projects within the CDB arena. But I'm disappointed because I don't think that that action was taken by the administration. It appears to me that we came up with a different way of solving it, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but I do disagree with the way we got there. This is the first I've seen of it. I expected to hear about this prior to today just to say, hey, this is what we decided. Look for it. So I guess I'll just say that I'm disappointed with the way this was handled and leave it there. Council Member Beard. Commissioner, walk through with me a little bit. The $160,000 was last year's or this current year's, and we're cutting that by 10%. No, sir, we're not. Oh, we're not. The social service agencies were not cut in the recommendation by the mayor. So that's where they fall in that category. Yes. That answers my question because it looked like initially maybe we were giving it to them with this hand and taking it away from them. You're right. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mayor. I was the council member who initially made the proposal to refund the $40,000. My thinking at that time was, you know, we can't afford not to fund the Salvation Army for $40,000 because of the vital role they play in our community, and that we probably needed some type of a safety net to make sure that if there's a delay in filing for those funds that we have a way to advise them so that it won't happen in the future. You know, my other concern was that they do need the funding, and I think I agree with Council Member Stephens it wasn't exactly what I hoped we were going to do, but at least we did get them refunded, and I think that's important. So I want to thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion on the Salvation Army issue? All right. Then I'll go back to the list of speakers generally. Council Member Gordon. Thank you, Mayor. I had a question on Item A, which is either Commissioner Helm or Michael Allen, please. And on the ‑‑ this was a change in an employee position, and I just wondered if you could clarify for me what is going on here. Is this a request by the employee to go part time, or was this a mandate from some place, or what is this? No, this is not a mandate. This relates to the HOPE VI grant, and one of the things that we have discovered is that we, with this particular project, we need to meet with individuals and families both early and late, sometimes often on the weekend, and we have an individual who very much would like to go to a different work schedule, and we certainly do not want to lose her expertise. She's been working with the project for the first two years, has established great rapport with the clients that she works with, and we thought that this would give us some flexibility in being able to meet the needs of those that we're working with with regard to this project. Okay. And so this had nothing to do with the management audit? It had absolutely nothing to do with management. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. Sure. And then I think I saw Charlie Martin in the back. Charlie, this is a pretty simple question. We have eight properties on our new business for acquisition for stormwater projects to demolish and create stormwater, and I didn't know are the memorandums of understanding something new that we're doing, or have we just not been? Are they different in any way? Not to my knowledge. They've been going on for a long time. Yes. That's my understanding. Have we been doing them since the beginning of acquiring properties? Daryl is nodding confirmation, so yes, that's my understanding. We've been doing that all along. Okay. Thank you. And then, Mayor, I guess I'll ask you my last question, which I appreciate Joe Kelly's response and email for future. Are any of these items related to management audit at all in new business? I haven't made that analysis yet, but I'd be glad to do so before the meeting on Thursday. One of the questions I had asked is that in the future, if from now forward we could see on new business, if any of the items are related to management audit recommendations, because it's more difficult for each council member to go through the recommendations and try to plug these in, if somehow, Joe's shaking his head yes, can you, because I think the administration will know what's being brought forward from the management audit, if you can kind of star them or make some notation. Yes. In the blue sheet process, I've asked the commissioners and other members of the senior team to denote if it's a management audit related item. The reason I was talking to Artie was there was two that we were not sure about whether or not on your agenda here today were management audit related, and we don't think they are. So to our knowledge today, subject to check, there are not any management audit related actions. So will you be able to transfer some kind of marking from when the blue sheet process goes through to new business items so that we can just look and see if it's a management, a little asterisk, or some easy thing. We'll design something that's easily notable. I really appreciate that. Sure. Okay, thanks. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Charlie Martin, if you could, I have a couple of questions, those same, those W through DD, the stormwater projects. I guess it's information, information. When we obtain those deeds, what do we do after that with the homes? After we acquire the properties, then we demolish them. We just demolish the homes, and then we just, and then what's our, what do we do for the maintenance then of the, we just take over the maintenance on the, as a. Essentially it becomes part of our other grass cutting operations. That's just part of our grass cutting. So do we put in what it's going to cost for the demolition? Is that part of the deed then, or? No. Go ahead, Darrell. No, that's not included here. All we have is the deeds. What's the cost that's going to be for that then normally? For the grass cutting? No, the demolition. I'm sorry. It ranges on the property $2,000 to $5,000. $2,000 to $5,000? So you would come back with that to us? We'll have a demolition contract that will be it for several properties that we have right now. Okay, thank you. And, Mayor, on number E, I guess, Dr. Stevens, I'd like to ask you if you could just kind of explain the Newtown Pike corridor ordinance, what that all entails, if you don't mind. Yes, I'd be happy to. It requires those properties north of New Circle Road to the urban service boundary. If they have a building permit for alteration of their building or a new building, they have to have a 25-foot setback with certain trees planted, as I think it states in the ordinance there. If they're south between New Circle Road and Main Street, then they have to comply with the tree planting ordinance. Okay. Thank you, guys, for the information. The last one is on K. I guess either Commissioner Kelly, possibly, and what's going on with Trafton. Maybe beyond just the footbridge, where we stand with Trafton, too, if you could. One is the footbridge is not related to the Trafton Street project, obviously. We've done some repair work on one of the storm drains out there, and my understanding is that the heavy rains over the weekend did not affect Pepsi property, which was very good news considering the amount of rainfall we had. The rest of the story is we have nowhere near enough money to do the Trafton Street project that we've talked about for a year, year and a half, whatever. And so we're still trying to figure out some way to resolve that issue. Beyond that. What did we put, a million in there? A million seven, I think. And what kind of money are we looking at? Around four, three, five to four. Four? Yeah. And we've done a couple of different alternatives, but we have not found anything that gets any cheaper. Then the real issue is in trying to acquire the Vaughan Warehouse property in order to do a retention basin. We have not been able to make any progress on that. Joe Kelly and I have dealt with Mr. Vaughan on several occasions, and we just have not been able to get that resolved. Because when was that, two years ago now? How long has this been going on? I've been here a year and three months, so it's beyond that. Because we wanted to make sure that we worked with Pepsi-Coli on this and put this in the budget, and I guess it was two years ago, and we're still in the process of working on it. Well, there's just not enough money to do what we have. If we did it right now, there's not anywhere near enough money to do it. So we've been trying to find an alternative that's cheaper. And until we figure out some way to deal with Mr. Vaughan, we can't find a cheaper way to do it. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Sennett. Thank you, Mayor. I have one last question on Item V, and I saw Charlie Martin just left the room, as well as Commissioner Taylor. So I don't know if we can get them back in here to answer this question on V. Okay. V as in Victor. This is authorizing the hiring of some temporary employees pursuant to, I assume, our consent decree obligations. Charlie, on Item V. My big question is, and this more resonates for all of our temporary hires, as we're starting to see a lot of these in other areas, not just your area, but who is going to be responsible in April 24th of 2014, I believe it is, or 2012, for making sure that their employment is terminated? I assume that will be me, because I figure I'll still be here by then. So it falls on the department which the employee is working in to make sure that, because I assume by this council approving this termination date in this business item, that their employment will cease on that day. We will not keep someone on unless it comes back to this council in the future. Absolutely. The reason for that termination date is obviously, as you are well aware, is that we've got near-term obligations that don't last forever. And so that's why we set it up that way, is that they're here to help us through those initial parts of those consent decrees. But once we get going on our own, then we don't want people just hanging around. But once that expiration date comes, we either have to come back and ask each one of you for permission again to extend that period, or that's it. Okay. I just want to make sure it's not the purview of human resources to extend those dates arbitrarily, that we do abide by those dates, it's your understanding from a director's standpoint. I know you're not the HR expert, but it seems to be a lot of temporary hires, and I keep seeing some of these temporary hires stay on even after the date that this council approves. I want to make sure that the understanding is clear that on April 24, 2012, that's over, unless you come back to this council. Well, I guess I'll put a ringing endorsement in for our HR component of our data management, is that those kind of things help you with that as well, because five, six years down the road, a lot of things have gone by, and not intentionally, I think, that sometimes those things can be overlooked because you're so busy with dealing with day-to-day processes. So that data management system of ticklers that help us to know when people's termination date is coming, when people have been on light duty too long, all the other HR things that you have to keep track of, that will be a big help. Okay. So they are notifying you of those things? Yes. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Kelly, can I bother you again, please? Please. This involves the Trafton Street project also. Okay. There was strong consideration by Pepsi-Cola bottling company to move their operation to Clark County. The appropriation was made and also a commitment that we would fix that situation that they had because their warehousing areas were being flooded on certain rain events. The difference between the $1.6 or $7 million and the 4 point whatever it was that you said, is that all wrapped around the Vaughan property purchase? And is that the appraised value or is that his value? That's his value, which is considerably higher than ours. It also, the cost of correcting the deficiency is higher than was anticipated two years ago. And then the point I made earlier, the fact that this rain we had this past weekend did not flood their property was, I thought, very significant because of some repairs that we had made to the system. So, you know, right now I can't recommend a situation to you that would not be expensive. Well, two things happened subsequent to our, and I was not on the council at the time, but at the time that the appropriation was made and based on our asserting the fact that we would get this fixed for them, they bought additional land in that area for expansion purposes. Is there any other way to get this thing remediated without having to go across the railroad, under the railroad, however, to get to go through the Vaughan tobacco property? You're asking the same question I've been asking for a year and a half almost. We have looked at some alternatives, but there is not a cheap alternative. The only other thing is to take it directly to McConnell Springs, which would be an environmental problem that we just couldn't do. And so we've looked at trying to come up with another retention basin, buying other properties. We've thought about, you know, buying part of their property. There's just not an easy way to do it. It's tough. Well, just an underlying reason, my level of concern, other than the fact that we somewhat gave our word, is that there are 180 to 200 jobs involved that could still probably move to Clark County. So we ought to have that tucked in the back of our mind at any given time that we are doing anything about this. We understand that. And, again, I go back to what I said earlier, the fact that we didn't have the water damage this past weekend with a huge storm, which had water damage where we'd never seen it before in Lexington. So hopefully we may have resolved part of the problem. We haven't solved the whole problem, but I think we've resolved the immediate problem. Okay, thank you very much. Any further discussion on the matters, items of new business? Seeing none, we have a motion on the floor to approve those items. Those in favor of approving the items of new business subject to modifications made, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now down to presentations. And the first and only one today is that of the Budget and Finance Committee, Councilmember Stephens. The Budget and Finance Committee met on March 25th in these chambers. There were 12 council people there, of course, including the 10 on the committee plus two others. We went over the current financial report. We're pleased that our machines are now working better and we're able to tally what money we don't have or what we do have. And, of course, we got the gloomy report that you alluded to in your budget address, though it's nice that we had a little bit better in the last two months. We haven't gotten the last month's report as yet. The main item of business at the meeting was a presentation by Community Development of their 2008 Consolidated Plan. We've already discussed that, I think, at length in the review of the several agencies who came to our meeting and presented their case, including the Salvation Army. A motion was made to, as Mr. Lane mentioned, by him to reallocate the funds for the agencies in that category. It was later a motion made by Mr. Myers to ask the Division of Community Development to recalculate their allocations in lieu of the Salvation Army report and report back with the new Consolidated Plan. However, we've learned that those changes have been made and we approved those when we voted on new business. That concluded our meeting. I might remind the Council now that the Committee on Budget and Finance is going into a hibernation period, which is traditional, and from now until the Council votes on the budget, any matters that relate to the budget will be done by the Committee as a whole under the chairmanship of the Vice Mayor. I know that Mr. Lane and Mr. Stinnett and I, who have been the chair and co-chairs of the Budget and Finance Committee, will be happy to help with anything we can do. I would remind those on the Council also that now is the time for your Links Committees to go to work and examine the document which we got today in light of the departments and divisions which you've been assigned to. I would suggest if you start with interviewing the Commissioners and the Division Directors, that would be a good place to start and you can find out about what this budget means to them and what their requests were this year. Also, you had distributed, and I think everyone has a copy of the plan for the Council as a whole meetings and so forth for the next several months. The next thing on that plan is a report by Mr. Jerry Sethers, the Budget Analyst in the Council Office, to present to the Committee as a whole on the fourth Monday, I mean Tuesday of this month, which date I can't think of right now, but if you had the 29th, his analysis of the budget. But I wouldn't wait to hear from him as we need to get our homework done so when he presents it to us, we'll have a better understanding. That completes my report, Mr. Mayor, unless someone has a question. Are there any questions for Dr. Stephens? I might just interject that there will be some narrative to support the budget that will be distributed in probably a week or ten days and so those links committees can have the benefit of that quite shortly. Okay, thank you. All right, that takes us down to the Council reports. If you wish to make a report, please indicate. We'll start with Council Member Blues. You were on my list anyway. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. I just want to add a couple of comments in relation to the motion made earlier to place the items related to the Lexington Farmers Market on the docket. It was back on May 8th that the Council formed the Farmers Market Task Force and we've worked over the year to bring forward what we think is, you know, a viable solution to the issue that precipitated that formation of the task force. And I just want to thank, first of all, my fellow task force members, Council Members Beard, Blevins, and James for the work that they did. Also, for the officers of the Lexington Farmers Market, Jeff Dabbled, the manager of the market, who signed the PSA. He's here today in the audience. Thank you, Jeff, for all your work and your help. John Gary, the former president of the market, Mark Henkel, the current president, and Rochelle Bowen, who gave us the guidance through the legal procedure and the writing of the PSA. I think that we've resolved this issue in a reasonable and workable way and have paved the way, if the Council approves these motions Thursday night, for the Farmers Market to open on Vine Street on Saturday on schedule. So I will ask fellow Council Members for two readings of the resolution in the ordinance on Thursday. Thank you, Mayor. That's my report. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. Is Commissioner Helm still in the chambers? Okay. I just have a couple of questions for her regarding… While we're waiting, I'll move approval for NDF. Second. I have a motion to approve the NDF. If there's no discussion, we'll proceed to vote. Those in favor of approving the NDF, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. I just had a… Hi, Commissioner. I just had a couple of questions. One is about the needs assessment. I think we postponed your report out of that and was wondering if we could get that back on. And then also, there's the social work rework that you're doing. Social work rework? Yes, sort of the reorganization that you're doing. Okay, you'll have to be a little bit more specific about rework because we're in the process of doing strategic planning following our needs assessment, but we have not done any kind of reorganization as of yet. Okay. Do you have an update on that, how that process is going? The strategic planning process? We've got committees that are working internally, but that's it. Okay. Well, I know that I think the charter says that social services, that the different departments are supposed to report out to different committees, and I think if I could get some help from the parliamentarian on which committee social services is supposed to report to because of planning. Have you scheduled that yet to do your update to planning commission or planning committee? I think, Mr. Schoeninger, I've been on the agenda a couple of times, but it's been canceled just as the needs assessment has been planned for a couple of times and was canceled. Let me go back to the needs assessment because we are ready to report, and I'm working to try and have that presentation sometime in April, later on in the month. It involves a number of people because we are inviting as many people who worked on that to come as possible, and so when it was canceled the last time, which was the second time that we had to postpone it, that took a great deal. So we're looking for a date somewhere the week of the 21st of April at a time that perhaps is outside of the council session, but certainly at a time that council members could attend and could participate. Because, again, we have a number of people we want to celebrate, and we want to recognize the hard work of the individuals from the community that have helped us to arrive at this particular point. Okay. So you don't want to do that during the work session? Well, I think it's just been kind of challenging to try to do it at a work session. It is not necessarily a lengthy presentation, but, you know, I think we presume that there will be lots of questions. We have not had an opportunity to bring all of the individuals back who worked on it, and some of them may have questions. So we just thought that perhaps a time outside of a council session, because we also want to do a brief reception to recognize and honor the individuals that have worked, and so we just thought that might be a little easier. Okay. Would that still be on TV, though, so that everybody in the community that participated or those who didn't have it? I think we could work on that. We weren't thinking about TV, but we certainly could look at that, sure. Okay. And could you work with Planning to get the other update into Planning Committee on their agenda? I know they moved a meeting, so it's not – I think it's actually next week. Okay. Is that too soon? May I comment? I don't know. I've already had a discussion with Paul Schoeniger since I chair Planning Committee, and I had understood you were bringing all of it to the work session, and that's why we didn't discuss putting it on our agenda. Now, if that – there may be some confusion about that. I'm not sure that it was really specified exactly what I was to present, and I don't think he made it real clear that I needed to present the needs assessment as well as the organization of the department, but I certainly can do that. Okay. So the organization of the department would be the only thing that you talk about at Planning? That's what I was thinking about doing, in addition to mentioning – certainly mentioning the needs assessment and making the connection between perhaps even management partners and the needs assessment, because I think in many ways they do align very nicely. Okay. So could we get that coordinated so that we could have that? I think that's going to be instrumental as we move forward with trying to put together the budget. The organization. Both the organization and the outcomes of the needs assessment and how that will affect the budget as well. Your thoughts? So – We have the agenda for this month's meeting already, and I purposely didn't put you on it because I thought that you were coming to work session. So if that's not true – I will work with Mr. Green and Ms. Langston and Paul to try and sort this out and figure out what we're doing when and where. Right. Again, I just did not want to schedule it for the third time and have to cancel it because it involves a number of people. Now you're talking about the needs assessment. The needs assessment. It involves a number of people. So like I said, right now we were looking at sometime the week of the 21st, perhaps the 23rd or 24th, I believe, doing a reception and then following with a presentation of the needs assessment. If you want us to present at a work session, then we will need to step back and, again, work with the council officers. Council staff? Well, I think there are two different issues. The most important one, I think, the rework or the reorganization, I think, needs to be either presented in the planning committee or work session. One of those two. Okay. We just need to talk. I'm not quite certain what the rework that you're referring to is all about. Okay. Okay. I will – And just one more comment about all that different scheduling. And if we can work together, all of us, to figure out what the second piece is. Okay. I would echo videotaping in case council members cannot be here for the presentation. If I could ask the chair, is there room on the agenda for this month's meeting and planning if it could all be arranged for it? For what? For the first part of the presentation, not the needs assessment, but the other piece. And the first part being? Can you define the first part, please? The rework, the part that has to do with the department, not the needs assessment. Reorganization of social services? Right. Is that what you're talking about? Are you ready to – do you know what that's about? No. No. So I'd say let's not put it on for next week since you're not comfortable knowing what that is. And once we talk, I may be – it may be fine. It's just that I'm not quite certain exactly what you want me to touch base with. Okay. We'll talk right after this. Thank you. I'll be on some agenda at some point in the near future, okay? That'll work. And that seems very important. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. Just a few things. One, in light of your budget address this afternoon, I have an early request if Commissioner Coe – yes, she's still back there. If you can get council to kind of make this process jump start a little easier, a listing of all the bonds, personnel, and or any other capital projects that have not been started, funded, or completed in fiscal year 2008, so we can kind of see a pending list of what things we still need to do in this current budget so we can kind of get started on things as we head into 2009. So if you can get that to all of us, that would be very helpful. Also, Friday – well, let me jump back a year and a half to September 23rd, 2006. Many of you know that as a big flood event day that happened in our community. Well, Friday, May – or April the 4th, 2008 was another flood day for some of us when the phones started ringing about 4 a.m. to respond to homes flooding and sewage backing up in the basements. I do want to compliment this time around. It was definitely much better in terms of our response as a city than last time. Yet we still have a long way to go to ensuring that people's homes don't flood every time we have more than an inch of rain here in our community. I just want to thank a couple people, especially Charlie Martin. I know he's back there in the back. I'd thank you anyway, even if you weren't here, because Saturday night you answered a phone call that really helped someone out, and I appreciate you doing that. Many people in government would answer their cell phone, especially from a council member on a Saturday night. But I do thank you for that, and within 30 minutes the problem was responded to and fixed. And I know to those people who needed heat in their home, who needed their basement pumped out, it meant the world to them. So I thank you for doing that as well. But I also want to point out that there is new funding in the budget that the mayor has put in there for stormwater, and while $3.8 million, I believe it is, is just a drop in the bucket to really fix our real problems. I would hope council would be diligent and remember Friday, because some of you didn't have to get up at 4 a.m. to those phone calls, but those of us that did, it's a serious situation in our community, and hopefully we'll be expedient over the next 12 months and get the stormwater program going sooner rather than later. So I hope you are committed to this in the 2009 budget and also over the next 12 months. I also want to thank Commissioner Don Kelly in the back of the room. We're full of thanks today, so I'm going to keep spreading it around. Streets and Roads folks, back in the last snowstorm, did an excellent job. My legislative aide in my office had the privilege of riding with one of the drivers on that snow event night, and she had a lot of kind words to say, especially about the danger of their jobs, and we do appreciate what they do to keep our roads safe. But also a couple weeks ago, heading home down Liberty Road where all the construction is going on, there was about a five-foot deep, and I'm not exaggerating because they can back me up now, pothole, and it really would have swallowed a car about 5.30 in the evening. So I called Commissioner Kelly, and within an hour we had put a half ton of blacktop in a hole, a pothole. So I thank you for your quick response and turnaround, because that means a lot to people that drive that corridor every night on the way home when you have 50,000 cars going through there. And many of us that live out the way know about that zigzag and how much traffic can be, and that was a major, major pothole, and he thought I was exaggerating about how big it was, I would never do that. So thank you for coming out and getting that done for us. On a more positive note, continuing with that positive thoughts, tonight we will be doing a, Charlie Martin will be presenting some of the EPA consent decree results to the Elkhorn Park Neighborhood Association at 7 p.m. at Parkway Baptist Church. I invite any of my colleagues who would like to attend, especially the at-large, if you want to hear an update, I know Charlie's looking forward to it at 7 p.m. tonight, and getting out there and answering and fielding some of those questions about the EPA consent decree that hopefully we will be able to resolve in another couple weeks. Thank you, Mayor, that'll be all. Thank you. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Mayor. A couple things. Sunday at 3 o'clock, the Higbee Woods Neighborhood Association will hold their meeting. Also, I wanted to send my congratulations out to the Dunbar High School Governor's Cup. They've won the Governor's Cup again for academic excellence. They won it last year. And again, another string of successes at the state level and national level for folks who, for our students who live here in Fayette County. And again, it's a real source of pride to be able to acknowledge them publicly. And great job, Dunbar. I'm sorry to steal Council Member Blevins' thunder again. And Council Member Stinnett beat me to it, but I've been absent and remiss from thanking Leo McMillan and all the Streets and Roads people for that snowstorm on March 7th and 8th. It was a difficult time for our family. We had lost a family member during that time, and I had gotten compliment after compliment about our Streets and Roads folks and the job they did with that storm. So I wanted to say that publicly as well. Lastly, I wanted to point out on one of our new business items, sometimes things come across new business and we vote for it and we don't really know sometimes the impact of it. But there's one item on here I want to bring to your attention. And if it's okay, I'd like just a little bit of light shed on this, and I think you'll see why in a minute. Item D on our new business docket basically was talking about the authorization to approve the resolution requested by the Kentucky Economic Development Finance Authority to issue health care system revenue bonds to benefit Kentucky Easter Seals Society. And this is done through Cardinal Hill. And this has a huge, huge impact to our community. Nothing that we're doing locally is basically just a blessing of kind of go forth and multiply. But I'd like to have Kerry Gilliham come up and speak on behalf of Cardinal Hill. But specifically what I want you to camp out on, or at least at some point, would you please talk about the jobs that this creates and the type of salaries of those jobs and who is benefiting from this? I mean, as we were talking about lean financial times and increased revenue, everybody here knows that I have been a strong advocate for serious economic development. And in this community, it's really about creating jobs. And I was delighted to hear some of the numbers that surround this, and I was glad to vote for it. But, Kerry, if you don't mind. Thanks, Jay. And Mayor, council members, we're very excited at Cardinal Hill because on the 17th of April we're going to have our public announcement. We're getting a public announcement now of a major expansion on the campus of Cardinal Hill. In essence, we are going to be doing a bond issue, if you all do the resolution, for approximately $43 million. The project itself will cost right at $40 million. It will expand the current capacity at Cardinal Hill from 108 to 232 inpatient beds. So we're adding a net 124 inpatient beds. We're going to have some private rooms. I think the community will like that. We now only have two private rooms, and as such, when we can't have private rooms, beds get blocked because semi-private becomes a private room. We're going to have about half of those 232 beds will be private, and they'll be very, very nice. Now, economically, obviously, the $40 million is going to be spent locally. We're going to use local contractors, local people. It's all going to be done local. That's a big lick. All done, we'll add another 248 employees, ranging from people that are therapists to doctors. The additional payroll will be over $13 million a year, and that will be every year until we have to add some more, and then it will go up from there. So we hope that you all are pleased with the economic impact. We're very excited to be able to do this project. We invite you to come out to the groundbreaking and the announcement. We'll let you know. Any questions? Well, I want to say thank you, and asking Councilmember Sennett to do some quick math, that puts about another, that new payroll, that $13 million of payroll, puts about another $300,000 into the city's revenue stream, and I want to say thank you in advance for that, and I want to thank you for your all's vision in doing things in a creative way. But these are the types of things that, again, we need to celebrate, not overlook, and certainly champion on your all's behalf. But I just wanted you to shed some light on that for Councilmembers. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Councilmember Wayne. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to bring the matter of amending the 1991 agreement between the Urban County Government and Keeneland Association before the Council for review. And each Councilmember has already received a little summary report on this, but I would like to ask that before people, we'll give you a short bit of information, and then at the conclusion, I'd like to open it up for questions. And the first person to make a comment will be Rena Wiseman, who is the attorney for Keeneland Association. Thank you, Mr. Lane and members of the Council. I hope you all did get, we had delivered to you, I think Thursday afternoon, a short packet to summarize what we're here to discuss with you. Some of you may be aware of this, some of you may not. But for many years, Keeneland was served by a private sewage treatment plant that was there. And as there were problems with it, it was determined that it would be better to connect that to the public sewer. Because of where this property is, given that it's outside the urban service area, there was an agreement that was entered into to allow that, an agreement between Keeneland and the Urban County Government. And that's the 1991 agreement that Mr. Lane mentioned. And that agreement allowed the current, the property of Keeneland as it existed in 1991, and its existing facilities and anything at reasonable extension to that, to connect to the sewer instead of using septic tanks. At the time, Keeneland had recently purchased what was then called, you may remember it as a Warrington Farm or the Murty Farm, 400-some acres adjacent to it. And that was excluded from the agreement. So nothing on that property could be connected. We're here today because we would like to amend that agreement to include that property and three other properties we've acquired since then to allow 11 facilities to connect to the sewer. There's two things that really generated us bringing this to you now. One is, and I wish Mr. Nicholson could be here. He had planned to be here today, but as you may know, one of Keeneland's trustees and my partner, Buddy Bishop, passed away, and his funeral was this morning. And Mr. Nicholson has other business to attend to, so he couldn't be here. But he is very keen on doing some environmental programs at Keeneland to try to make it more responsible in terms of recycling water for watering the facilities out there, and more than I can explain. But part of that was what else can we do, and part of that would be eliminating the septic tanks that are out there and connecting to the sewer. The second thing that really spurred this was Keeneland acquired a property that is known as the Keen Mansion, but it's never been owned by Keeneland. It was owned by the original Keen family who sold their farm to Keeneland in 1935, which is now Keeneland. And that 15 acres was acquired two years ago by Keeneland. It's being renovated now. It's been to the Board of Adjustments. It's going to be used as a small dining meeting facility. We've been working with the University Archeological Department to research the history, with Jim Thomas, who did a lot of the work at the Shaker Town renovation. So a lot of care is going into it, and the plan was to connect this to the septic tank because this property wasn't owned by Keeneland when we did the 1991 agreement. So it was that that spurred us to decide, well, let's see if we can amend the agreement to bring the Keen Mansion on to the sewer since it's there and it's available and there's capacity. And while we're at it, we would like to go ahead and expand, amend the agreement to let these other ten facilities to be connected as well. In working with the health department on the Keen Mansion, there was an email in your book that they questioned why are you doing a septic tank because there's a sanitary sewer out here. We would like you to connect. And all we could say is, well, we're bound by a contract with the urban county government not to connect that. So they very much would prefer that we connect this building as well as the other buildings out there that are not covered by this agreement to the sewer. And I think there are two representatives from the health department who are here today, if you have questions about that as well. So that's the question and that's what we're asking is if we can amend the agreement to allow this additional property and the three additional properties we've purchased since 1991 to be included. A total of 11 facilities are involved on those properties. That includes some barns, an office or two. I've listed them in that book. The entertainment center, in terms of generating flow, those facilities generate 7,200 gallons per day. By way of comparison, that's equivalent to 18 single family homes. GRW is our engineering consultant. The pump station, which was installed in 1991, which is public and maintained by the government, has a capacity of 320,000 gallons per day. So even if Keeneland is operating on a busy Saturday when it's not raining and when more people come to Keeneland, this can handle the additional flow from that as well. And Mr. Helm from GRW can answer that question. We've also discussed this with Charlie Martin, and I think he confirms that the pump station that is installed out there can handle this additional flow. There is a very good map, if you brought your book with you, that shows the extent of Keeneland. Keeneland is now nearly 1,000 acres, and most of the main plant was brought onto the sewer by the 1991 agreement. Now we basically have these pieces and parts we'd like to bring on, and rather than coming back each time we want to decommission a septic tank, we'd like to do this all at one time. I have prepared, obviously, for law department review a proposed amendment to that agreement, and I would point out there is a precedence for this with regard to the horse park. This council in 2000 entered into an agreement with actually the state of Kentucky to allow the public sewer to serve the horse park and part of Spindletop because of problems with the private treatment plant. And the council approved a memorandum with the state to allow that to go on with the defined service area. The horse park came back to you in 2003 because additional land had been acquired and asked you to amend that agreement to allow that additional property to be covered. So we're, in essence, asking you the same opportunity as you afford the horse park. And the bottom line is we would like to tie everything on to the public sewer since it's there. We think it's the more responsible thing to do, and it can serve these facilities for many, many years to come without the problems that ultimately septic tanks can cause, which is why we no longer want septic tanks as a rule in this community. So that was probably longer than you wanted to hear at 4.30 in the afternoon, but that's a little summary. I have here with me is Harvey Helm from GRW and John Howard, who runs all the physical plant at Keeneland, if you have any questions for them. And certainly I'm available as well. And I do understand there was some representation from the health department. I do have a question. As I understand it, this force main, is this the one shared with the airport? I don't know about that. Maybe your engineer can answer that question when he comes up. This force main is totally located on Keeneland. The pump station is where the original package plant was, and the force main runs kind of bisects the property out to Versailles Road. Some place I had the understanding that the force main that went to the airport, this is a separate force main that has no relationship to the airport force main. I don't know that, but Harvey Helm says it does not. Charlie? It does not. They're on opposite sides of the road. The Keeneland one is on the Keeneland side of Versailles Road, where the airport is on the airport side of the road. Sounds like a good idea to hook on then. The airport force main, the reason I was asking, is I don't know where I got that misunderstanding, but they're about to reach the capacity of their force main, and I was just concerned that if this was the same, that it might inure further airport development. But I'm happy to hear that they're two separate tubes. I guess we're kind of going out of order here, but just to give you a little bit more of a comfort level, one of the things that's unique about Keeneland is that they have a 200,000 gallon storage tank out there that they use to offload flow in order to reduce the peaks on the pump stations. So when we're talking about another 7,200 gallons a day generated by these 11 connections, it won't impact the pump station any whatsoever, because you've got the dampening effect of a 200,000 gallon tank that is feeding the pump station. It will mean it will run another minute a day. Thank you. Council Member Lane. All right. Would anybody like to say something on behalf of the Health Department regarding this matter? I'm Luke Mathis. I'm with the Environmental Health Department. The Health Department does support this idea in any condition that would allow expansion of the sanitary sewer. Okay. That was pretty concise. Thank you. You can come back whenever you'd like. I could work with him and he could speak longer. I think is Ed Gardner here also? Okay. All right. Well, I think that concludes it. Does anybody else have any other questions that they would like to ask? Thank you. Well, that being said, I would like to move to place on the docket a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an amended agreement and an amended deed of permanent easement with Keeneland Association, Inc. related to providing sanitary sewer service for facilities owned by Keeneland Association, Incorporated. Second. Thank you. Motion by Council Member Lane and second by Council Member Crosby. All in favor of adding that item to the agenda, to the docket. Council Member Blanton. Quick question, Ed. Has this been reviewed by law? I didn't get that impression. Yes, sir. Ed Gardner has reviewed the resolution. Thank you. All right. Those in favor, then, of adding that item to the docket, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. I have one other short item on my note here. There was a memorandum from Rebecca Langston dated April 8th regarding a CPF request for capital expenditure of funds related to an algae problem in the retention basin at the entrance of Woodfield Subdivision. This is in a large retention area that services a number of neighborhoods and having a serious problem. And they've asked for a contribution, and we're on a one-to-one match. And I would like to have that also put on the docket, and I'd like to make that motion. Okay. I'm not clear, then, what it is we're putting on the docket. The motion would be to approve a capital expenditure fund in the amount of $2,489.06. That's $2,489.06 on a one-to-one match for an ongoing algae problem in the retention basin at the entrance of Woodfield Subdivision. This has been approved by legal, by the way, and Woodfield Homes is a not-for-profit, and the retention area is a public area that services a number of neighborhoods. We have a motion. Did we have a second? Council Member Crosby seconded. Council Member Gordon. Is the source of funds from the council capital funding? Yes, ma'am, it is. It's out of my allowance. Any further discussion? Those in favor of adding that item to the docket, please let it be known by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Thank you, Mayor. That's all. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Mayor. Before we went on break, I had asked if we could have management partners come back and do kind of a question and answer with us regarding the management audit. And at that time, we were going to submit some questions, and of course we went on break. And while we were gone, I got several emails back and forth, and it's been brought to my attention by Rebecca that possibly she has gotten feedback from council members that we prefer to do this in person and not submit questions, that we'd like for this to be more of a free-flowing where we can just ask questions rather than submitting them beforehand. So I'm not sure if I have to make that a formal motion. If the council would prefer that I do that, I'd be happy to. Yes? Okay, I'll make a motion that we bring management partners back in to do a formal presentation, Q&A with council, without us submitting questions prior to them coming. Second. I have a motion and a second to bring management partners back for an in-person session with the council. I don't have any problem with bringing whoever we need to bring back for management partners, but there were a number of different people that were involved in that process. And I think if we, I don't know, is it fair to say dozens of people involved in that process? Well, and I think our problem is with what we've run into, I think, with trying to submit our questions, is the feedback we've been getting has been so voluminous that we've had a very difficult time trying to compile questions because it's all over the board regarding the report. And so we may have to bring back multiple people from the audit. I'm not even sure where to start, whether we bring back. I guess based on this feedback I've been getting, there's several different areas, and whether, during the retreat, was there one person there? I was not available during the retreat. There were just two. Were they answering questions on the entire audit? There were three people present. Are those three people capable of answering questions on the entire audit, or do we have to bring back 12 people who handled? So can we bring back the three people who could answer the questions on the entire audit, who were there for the retreat? If they were capable of answering questions, I guess, during our retreat, could they not answer the same questions in a public meeting? Anybody? Joe? Well, let me respond to that a little bit. They certainly, the people who were there certainly have familiarity with a number of different areas in the report. To the degree that you want to be specific about some areas of the report, though, it may well be that there will be other people who were not here back in February who would be better sources of information for you than those three people would be. If all you want are those three people back, we can do that. But to the degree you want a different level of detail than what we got in February, then it would be helpful if we could identify the areas where you need the detail. I think if we bring back those three people and they cannot answer the questions we have in great detail, then certainly they could go back to their company and ask the questions for us and then submit something at that time to us for follow-up. Dr. Blues? That puts some perspective on it that's helpful. I appreciate it. Council Member Gordon. Thank you. You will recall that a lot of questions came up at the retreat relating to fire recommendations. And although in the budget address we did hear that there will be no recommendation right now to remove a person from EC units, Mayor, I thought I understood that that would be something to be discussed in the future. So I will again put my request in to have the person who evaluated fire, because the people who were from the management audit at our retreat, I felt were not able to answer the fire-related questions. So I would make that request. That's fine. All I'm trying to do is make sure we get the people here we need to have here and don't have a bunch of people come in that we really don't need, because that's not going to be A, useful, and B, it will be expensive. So what I'm hearing right now is the three people who were present in February plus the fire person. So we're looking at four different folks right now. Council Member Beard. If my memory serves me right, and that isn't a given, the person that did the fire investigation for them resided in Florida. Out of state, certainly. Yes. And I guess I don't see at this point why it's necessary to talk to him if the subject is EMS units alone. It could happen sometime afterwards when we're ready to address EMS units and the staffing thereof rather than to bring him up here. If we're not prepared to do anything about the EMS units, it might be a waste of time. I know my feeling about the EMS unit situation is I don't care if you bring 12 people up here, I still want three people on the truck. So it's just a waste of money to bring somebody up here to tell me what I already have made up my mind about, I guess. But, again, that would be expensive or more expensive, I guess, to bring him up here, and I just don't see the need at this juncture anyway if that's all he's here for is the EMS question. Council Member Blues. My question is similar to Council Member Beard's. What expenses are involved in bringing the management audit folks back to council? I know there is some travel expense. I'm not sure to what degree this is included in the fee we paid them already. I don't know whether Mr. Kelly can address that or not. When Council Member Gordon and I discussed this previously, we were going to try to conference call the appropriate folks in. You're shaking your head, which I understand. I think if Mr. New Farmer and Julia would probably be willing to come back one more time for a discussion to try to respond to questions if you have additional questions that they can answer. I think if we ask them to bring additional people in, they're going to expect to be reimbursed for that. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request, actually. Well, in response to that, perhaps we could have the two of them and have, I mean, if in fact we're going to be discussing in the future the EMS situation, we could have that person by conference call at the meeting when we have the two consultants come. Sure. And then we'd, in essence, have three people without paying the transportation for one of them. And that would be a compromise situation. Sure. And y'all were going to provide us with some dates that might work for y'all, and we'll have to check their calendars to see if it'll work for them. And maybe we could politely remind them that they did change their agenda of our, the day we were supposed to have them in for our question and answer for our retreat. They moved it up for their travel during that day so that they could get back to Cincinnati. As I recall, they were scheduled to meet with us during the afternoon, and they changed it to the morning. So I don't think that everybody could be there during that time. Actually, they stayed all day. They were there all day. Council Member DeCamp. Mayor, would it make sense, I think everybody agrees that we would like to do this, but would it make sense if those council members let our council administrator know those specific items that we really want to go over? That would give us a better handle on people that we would need to be here, work with your office, and then I think we could contact them and get a figure of what this is going to cost us, and then I think we could, and then we've got to figure out where the money's coming from to do this, out of what budget, and are they coming, you know, at no cost? But I think if our council administrator could work with your office, then we could come. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it at all, but I think we need a better handle on it before we say positively, you know, I think we need to know who should be here, how much money it's going to cost, and how it's going to be paid for. And I think if we just waited a week, then we could have more information with our office working with your office and coming up with something a little more on a firmer base than what we have now. Council Member Stennett. Mr. Chair, have we paid them yet on the current contract? I'm not sure what the status of that is. In other words, have they rendered a final bill to us? I mean, I thought part of this whole audit process was the follow-up. And they have provided follow-up to us. I'm not saying that they're going to. As I said, I think that probably Jerry and Joya would be willing to come back, and if we could plug the other folks into the phone. And so that would probably be free of charge. I would. Or part of the original contract. Nothing's free. Exactly. But part of the original contract. Yes, yes. They've been very reasonable. I don't care if you bring all 12 or however many, I think, but the point is we've got to have these questions answered. If the administration is prepared to push one way or another for certain types of recommendations, or if a councilman feels strongly enough about a recommendation they'd like to see it brought forward, I think those specific ones, we need to have the right person there. But Councilman Crosby, I don't think you mean to do this in the next 30 days. Is that your time frame? Because the way I understand it, we were going to wait until this fall after we get through these next 60 with the budget. I'm just trying to sense the urgency. I'm not necessarily sure that it's the urgency, but I don't think in the fall either. I think that's way too long. I see it. When the mayor gave his budget address, he was saying that I'd have to go back and look. I don't want to try and quote word for word, but that many of the things in the management audit process probably would not be implemented at this immediate time. But then when we were doing our new business items, we were asking which one of these items were part of the management audit process. So we're seeing things from the management audit being implemented, and we're hearing lots of questions about this audit. So as we're going through this budgeting process, we're implementing things from the audit. So I think they're kind of going hand-in-hand. So in my mind, I sense that there may be a little bit more urgency in the fact that they are going hand-in-hand. And if we're implementing things from the audit, then we should have these answers questioned probably earlier than later, definitely not fall. And I also have another question. Obviously we've approved the major expenses associated with management partners, but I guess I would throw out have we paid them any more money that's under $50,000 that we haven't had to approve as a council? Not at this point, no. There will be a process for reengineering the permitting and development process that we've entered into an agreement with them to provide, and that will be about $47,000, and that work is underway. And notification will be coming to you about that. And where will that come from? Where will it come from? Out of the... Whose budget? Out of this budget, yes, out of this existing budget, out of the 08 budget. What department? I believe we're checking to see if there is funds left in the original budgeted item for the management audit. If not, it would come out of the innovative plan. So basically another $47,000 will be paid, is what you're saying? Yes. My original motion is to bring in two, what is it, the two or three people? Two and a conference call. Two and a conference in. I think the last version that people seemed to be having some agreement about was to bring in the two key folks, Jerry and Julia, and then have one or more available by conference call at that time. Council Member Wayne. Yes. I'm going to support Ms. Crosby's motion. And I think this is very important because on a collective basis, if all the council members can sit in on these meetings and we can ask questions, and when we come up with an idea that we like, we would be able to implement it much faster than dragging it out through a series of meetings and things. And then, I mean, I know I have some questions too. I'm on the public safety links and the area about the EMS is a major issue there. So I would find it very beneficial to get updated on that too. So I am seconding her motion. Okay. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mayor. How much have we, what was the original contract with Management Partners? I can tell you off the top of my head. $395,000. Okay. Is it possible to get a copy of the original agreement with them so that we can see whether or not we've got more money built in and those kinds of things? Sure, absolutely. Okay. Could you maybe just get that to our council administrator and she can check it out? Yes, everybody. Yes, sir. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Mayor. Any further discussion on the motion? And the motion, as I understand it now, is that we schedule a time for Andrew New Farmer and Gia Novak, thank you, to come back in person and to arrange others as needed by phone, and particularly, I think, the fire consultant. Is that right? Fair statement? All right. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no. Motion carries. Anything further? Council Member Duquesne. Thank you, Mayor. I have two motions and one comment. First of all, to improve the process of enforcement of rollout cards, I would like to put into the Service Committee a review of Section 16 of the Refuge Collection Ordinance. The Mayor needed to leave, so here I am. Thank you, Mayor. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I have a second motion. I think this was brought to fore when we were presented with the Center Point development downtown, and I know the first thing I went to was the downtown master plan, and then all of a sudden I realized that the downtown master plan had never really been presented, but I don't think approved by this council, and I would like to see that the downtown master plan be put into the Planning Committee for review. I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Doc? Oh, any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. And just one comment, just to let you know that the arts are alive and well in Lexington, and I hope we will continue along that. My wife and I Friday night had the privilege of going to the Actors Guild production of the well-known play by Tom Stomford called Arcadia. This is an outstanding play. It's a long play, and it was a difficult play to produce, and I will say that in my estimation the Actors Guild put on a first-rate production. The acting was terrific. It was a new high for the arts. Many of the actors were local, and it was an excellent production, and kudos to the Actors Guild of Lexington. They did a great job and continue to do a great job of putting on local productions, and I hope we will all continue to support them. Thank you. Do other council members have council reports? If not, Council Member Gorton will give hers. Just tagging on to the arts, if you, the public, have not been to Arts Place to see the wonderful art by our Lexington Fayette Urban County Government employees, you need to go. We have some fantastically talented people, and it's a wonderful, wonderful exhibit, and you'll be amazed what your coworkers can do. So I encourage you to go to Arts Place and see that. Just a reminder that Planning Committee and Intergovernmental were switched this month. Planning Committee meets on April the 15th at 1 o'clock, and Intergov meets at April the 22nd at 1 o'clock. And then finally, I had an announcement about the new noise task force. Our task force, which is co-chaired by myself and Council Member Blues, has had one meeting. We have our second meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m., and then we have a public meeting scheduled on April the 30th at 6 o'clock in the council chamber. The purpose of the public meeting is to hear from the public what they see as noise concerns in Fayette County. The dog task force attended to barking dogs, so we will not hear barking dog complaints. That's already been done, and this will give the public an opportunity to air any other complaints that have to do with noise issues in the community. So that's April 30th at 6 p.m. And there is now, continuing on the agenda, there's no Mayor's Report. And so next we'll have public comment for any issues that were not on the agenda. Is there anyone who wishes to speak? No? All right, then I believe we have a motion from Council Member Ellinger related to closed session. Thank you. I move to pursue into KRS 61.8101C to go into closed session for the purpose of discussing proposed litigation involving the Lexington-Fayette-Irwin County Government. So moved. Motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. So we're back into open session, and do I have a motion to come into open session? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? And I believe Council Member Stennett has a motion. Thank you, Chair. I move the place on the docket for April 10th resolutions authorizing and directing the Department of Law to institute condemnation proceedings in Fayette County Circuit Court to obtain permanent sanitary sewer and temporary construction easements across the properties located at 1637 and 1645 Old Paris Road for the North Elkhorn Forest Main Project. Second. A motion by Council Member Stennett and a second by Council Member McCord. Is there discussion? If not, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. Meeting adjourned. Thank you.