"'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") "'What's Gonna Happen to My Boyfriend?' The Kid I Mentioned On You and Now I Can't Be Satisfied") Good morning. Welcome. People might want to find your seats, please. We'd like to get started. Good morning. This is the November 12, 2019, Special Committee of the Whole Year 19 Fund Balance Discussion. And I believe people should have the proposals in front of them. And as we agreed when we set this up, we would start with the budget referrals from the LINC's proposal in the spring. And the first item on that agenda is from the General Government LINC, and that is for a one-time subsidy to all non-collective bargaining employees. And does someone from the LINC want to speak to any more of the details of that proposal? Council Member Lamb. Vice Mayor, thank you. The General Government LINC, we did recommend having a one-time subsidy to all non-collective bargaining employees. That, if everybody will remember, that we did have one that we gave to the employees. That was, I believe it was the end of June or the beginning of July. However, we also told the employees that going forward in the budget, the non-collective bargaining employees, that we would make sure that we kept them at the top of the list going forward. Because, as you remember, we did not give them any percent of a cost of living during this current fiscal year, which to compare to collective bargaining is quite the contrast. And so if there are any further questions on that, I would be glad to answer it. But I think it would be a very good thing to be able to keep the non-collective bargaining employees in the front of the list going forward. Okay, so there was no specific number tied to that at that time. Is that correct? Well, I think we were discussing the fact of reduplicating the amount that we did in June or July, but there was no specific amount tied to. I know Council Member Maloney has made a suggestion to have a different type of supplement for the non-collective bargaining employees, which I think would be worthy of reviewing that information. Okay, I guess unless there's an objection, there's two other recommendations that deal with the same issue. The Mayor's recommendation, which would be to do essentially what we did in the spring, and Council Member Maloney's recommendation that we stagger the supplement by various categories. So I guess I would suggest that we just open the conversation to include those two recommendations and anything else that anybody would like to bring forward. So, Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I also want to thank the administration for requesting the additional money for another surplus for the employees and their recommendation, and I do support that, but I did make some changes to that because I really felt that we need to keep it consistent for all employees by giving 1% to people over 50,000. I didn't think it was a good message we sent to all the employees. And I think to me, I don't know where your motions are going to be made at, but I still think this should be a top number one priority because the reason why I say that is of all the years I've been here and when we have a surplus, 99% of it is coming from additional revenue. This surplus is coming from the back of the employee's expenses for making cuts that they did. And to me, that's the message we need to send back and thank them and put some of that money back and thank them for what they've done. And then the rest, I mean, you all can discuss it. I really personally think we know what's going to happen in the next two or three years, the recession coming in. I think the message is we need to keep these employees, and we make a promise. We have everybody knows how important public safety is. We do that. We give them the raises every year. We give them the 3% to 5% to 7% raises, whatever their contract. But we need to be consistent and remember where this money came from. It did not. I don't mind doing new revenue. I voted against some of these things before, but this is not new revenue. This is an expense from these employees, and I want everybody to understand it came from these employees where this money is. And we need to either give it to them, some of it, or we need to go put it back in the general fund so they won't make this cut this year when we made them forced to cut this year. So if there's going to be a motion made, I make a motion that we do go ahead and put the $750,000 set aside and so we can go on with the employees and then we can go from there and then you all can decide what you want to do. If it's the top priority, I'll make that motion. We have a motion in a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Council Member Misati. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Maloney, on your recommendation, you've got the $750,000 coming out of the 1101 fund, and is this part, this other single sheet, is that yours as well? That's the side. Yes, ma'am, that's it. We broke it down. That's part of it. So we've got a total of, well, you've got two totals. You've got one on the left of $1133,144 and then you've got one at $1132,822.50. Which is yours and which is, are you the proposed December supplement? And I think revenue, I mean. Council Member Maloney, excuse me. I think the motion is simply at this point to set aside $750,000. It's not about how we do it. Is that correct? $750,000 we can discuss if it's that direction. And that might be useful if we can get clarity about whether there's agreement that we want to set aside that amount of money for the supplement. Then we can figure out. We can have further discussion if that's okay. Vice Mayor, the numbers don't match. That's why I was trying to figure out what we were doing here. Okay, so I want to clear the motion that's on the table. It does not involve a specific amount, a specific way to allocate that money. If we can get that kind of laid down, then I think we can have the discussion about exactly how that money would be allocated, if that makes sense. So the motion on the floor is to allocate $750,000 for some fashion of employee supplements. So is that okay? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree that this is an important topic and that we should allocate some money to have a discussion on that. But I think the dollar amount of the money is important because it will weigh into other decisions that we make as far as allocating other funds. Okay, my understanding of the motion is that the motion is for $750,000. What's not included in the motion is the manner in which that money would be distributed amongst the employees. There's a proposal from the Mayor as a way to do that, and there's a proposal from Council Member Maloney. So to that regard, I think it's appropriate for us to discuss how that money is appropriated and how we can get to a dollar amount as we move forward. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. I'm sorry, I've got Council Member Fred Brown in line. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted a little bit of clarification because is this the same item that the Mayor had on her recommendations for $745,000? It would relate to that. Right now, I guess what I'm trying to do is see if I understand. Okay. I understand you've got just a number, $750,000, and that would be a capped number, my understanding would be. We haven't detailed it, but that would be the total, including fringe and anything else that went into it. Correct. Now, is this a recurring expense or not on this? It's not, is it? I think that remains also to be determined. To be determined. One time expense. This could be. One time expense. Okay. Both of the proposals that are on our sheet are for one time. Okay. But we need to have that conversation. Yeah, well, that makes a big difference because I think recurring expense, out of fund balance, we just haven't done that in the past. We want to stay with one time expenditures. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think to the point that Council Member Brown, James Brown, was arguing is maybe I appreciate the sentiment of the number and the intent. I think there might be other options available that were not necessarily discussed earlier that might change that number, and that's why I think we maybe wanted to listen to all the different ideas on how we might spend it so that if there's a difference of $650,000 and $750,000, that's a significant difference of a number. I think that was the only thing on the side there was conversation about. Okay, thank you. Council Member Hellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. To the same point that they've made, and I'm looking at the employee supplement. He has $1.1, and I don't know where the $750,000 comes because that's where the mayor is, but that's where I don't understand the difference in the numbers because the $745,000 is what the mayor gave. His looks like $1.1, so we just picked $750,000, and I'm not sure where that number is coming from. Council Member Maloney. I'd be glad to. You may want to have somebody from HR come up and talk about that. When you give this kind of bonus, you have to include the benefits and everything into it. We did the same thing last. Read this, and it's still $1.3. When we did the bonuses, the $750,000, it still came out to $1.13 million or whatever. So I'll let Melissa explain it to you. The scenario that Council Member Maloney has proposed, the total amount with fringe for all funds is $1,135,312. The amount for the general fund only fringe bonus is $755,182. So the difference of that $400,000 is the other funds' impact. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Okay. I was trying to catch you before you went. Okay, so that is the amount based on what Council Member Maloney is proposing? Yes. Okay. Now, do you have the exact number that we used from the general funds as it relates to the supplement as it was paid in July? Please. So that, I don't have the total amount on here, but the general fund amount, the supplement in July, what was budgeted was $744,468. That's what was budgeted but not necessarily what was actually expended. Is that a fair statement? That's a fair statement, yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you very much. And what I want to just reiterate is in all of our conversations today, including the $750,000, that motion that's on this floor now that we have to understand, and I'm saying this for Mr. Romero today, is that this is all one-time money. None of this is recurring. So I think that we should just make sure that we understand that fully and get that clear right now because none of this can be recurring. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to this motion? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. If folks are entertaining or interested in entertaining other proposals, I would look to propose a flat $500 one-time supplement to all non- I guess the appropriate would be to amend Council Member Maloney's motion. So I move to amend Council Member Maloney's motion to a one-time $500 supplement to non-collective bargaining city employees. And I think the numbers on that, the amount coming out of general fund is $664,000. So the amount to earmark would be $670,000. Thank you. Thank you. I have a motion to amend the motion that's on the floor. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the amendment? Council Member Evans. Do we know that's actually the correct number? Yes. Can we get some clarification? Seemed to just kind of pull that number out. So I need to confirm that number. We had provided that number to Council Member Brown. The general fund amount for a $500 supplement for everyone is $664,825. The total amount across all funds is $986,430. What was that number again? $986,430 is all funds total for that amount. And the first number? $664,825. And the other proposal is $755,812? $664,825. Right, and the second proposal is $755,812? $755,182. Okay, well, thank you for that. And I guess I would just reiterate that, as Council Member Maroney's previous point, that this is not extra money to be honest. This is money that we have based on budget cuts and hiring freezes. So before we are quick to look at anything else, I think it's good that we are trying to give it back to employees. But I think the remainder that we have, perhaps we need to restore what was – there are a couple of things that I think we should restore back that were previously – that we cut beyond the original 15%, like the Explorium. But I think we truly need to keep in mind that this is not money that we have based on new revenue. This is because of hiring freezes and cuts that were made to divisions. This is not new money that we have. So that's why I've made the recommendations that I've had, needs to go back into the general fund because we do have hard times that are coming up. And quite frankly, I think we need to save as much money as we can and put it towards the next budget because, again, this is not money that we've created. And we do need to give it back to the employees that did sacrifice and that will continue to sacrifice. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. The reason I changed the recommendation from the mayor's rule is because I didn't want to do the 1% for each employee like I did before with over 50,000 and I thought it would be fair if we were going to do anything. But I do support your motion to do the 5 million straight across the board. So I will support this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Is anybody else interested in speaking on this amendment? Seeing none. And the amendment is to allocate $500 across the board to non-sworn or non-bargaining collective employees. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion carries. So that will take 64,825 off the balance. I'm sorry. That's the amendment to the motion. Thank you. Now the underlying motion. Any further discussion? As amended? If not, Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support this and I want to do everything I can, that we can, to support our city employees. And given the situation that we're in with this budget, I think this is the best that we can do. And given the holiday season, it's appropriate, I think. But I want us to keep in mind, particularly as we look to next year, this is just shy of now that we've changed it, what would have been a 2% raise. And so now that we've changed it to 500 apiece, that's not exactly right. But this does not affect base pay. This does not affect pensions. And I think we need to look forward in the future to make sure, if we want to do something to help our city employees, we're increasing their pay so that their pensions are better affected and their fringe benefits are affected. I think if this is the best we can do this year, two stipends, then I'm happy to do it. But now, looking at the money that we've given out to employees, maybe if we dug a little bit deeper and looked a little bit harder, we could have given a raise. And I hope that in the future we take a little harder look to that. But I do support this. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'll just echo what I think Council Member Worley said perfectly. I think that anything that we can do to thank our employees and show them that we appreciate all that they do, that we should do that. And my reason for the amendment is just to try to – I know there were some grumblings across the board about how we did it in the 1%. So just doing a flat one-time supplement, I think, is the best way to address all employees. But I think our focus moving forward is how we can put in place an opportunity to get pay raises that impact base pay going forward on a yearly basis and justify it. And that's why we have that item in committee. And I look forward to working on that going forward to better show our employees that we appreciate the job that they do and all they do for city government. Thank you. Thank you. Can I get a screen that's not a voting screen if people want to log in? Thank you. I see nobody else logged in. We're voting on the proposal as amended. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Next would be a recommendation from General Government and Social Service Link on the Explorium. Again, there's no number attached, but there is a related proposal from Council Member Evans. Do you wish to speak to this? It goes back to my previous statement that this was an agency that was cut beyond the 15 percent. And I think the Explorium did come and present earlier this year and presented how they have made strides and improvements. And I think they have done a great job. And I think they deserve to be made whole. And, yeah, I would move that 41 percent or the 41,500. So I would move that we add the 41,500 back to their budget. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Fred Brown. I have a couple of other things, but since it's just on the motion, the 41,500, is that what was left? I thought we'd give them a little bit more when they came. But the 41,500 makes it up to the mayor's former budget amount. Is that correct? I believe that's correct. Okay. All right. I'm fine with it. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think I've sat on this link on this for the past three years. And I do think the report that we've got is positive. I think that a lot happened in a short time. And I think we need to really look at next time the results of what was put out there for us, because it is the third time that we've had the Explorium come back. And I wish them well. I hope some of the things that they have outlined here come to reality. It's just that I'm a little concerned still. But I'll support it this time. But I think we definitely need to see some results from what was outlined here. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I really appreciate all that the Explorium has been doing to try to answer some of the questions that we had on our link and our concerns. I'm still really concerned about the expenses that they have versus the money that's coming in and some of the specifics of the support that they're receiving. And I guess I'm still concerned about restoring this money at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Farmer. I'm supportive here, too, because this restores them to the budgeted amount, less the 15% cut that everybody else took. I think their programming is important to the children, but to downtown and to our entire city for that matter. So I'm very supportive. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just want to reiterate some of my comments that were made on behalf of the link as the chair and then when I came to the General Government Committee and that the decision, at least from my takeaway from the link, to reduce this money from the Explorium was more of a we had parks programs that we were wanting to fund and this was a third-party agency and we just had to balance the two interests, but we asked them to come back and show that they're the investment that they claim that they are, and I do believe that they've done that and I'll be supportive of the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? I'll just add my own comment with the one thing that I put on my list for the same reasons that people have already spoken to. I think it's clear that the council is going to be looking at what happens going forward with the Explorium. Nobody else has signed up to speak. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Can we get a voting? We're going to get a screen fixed in a second, I'm sure. Yeah, we don't have a voting screen in front of us. Thank you. Council members, please register your vote electronically. I need two more votes. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. The number was 41-5. Okay. That would bring us to the next item, which is the Downtown Lexington Partnership. From that link, Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I think council members got an e-mail earlier this week about a proposal from the Downtown Lexington Partnership. I plan to put that in committee to have a presentation later on today. But if we could today just have an update from the Downtown Lexington Partnership about their efforts in regards to downtown development. I'm sorry, but before we do that, we've typically not had presentations from individual applicants at this. I'm sorry. Shouldn't the link be bringing out this recommendation of the chaired links? My understanding of how we have proceeded is that this is not a time for individual organizations, entities, et cetera, to make presentations to the council. It's for council to make their own recommendations based on information that we have. So I'm going to, as the chair, I'm going to rule that that would be inappropriate at this time. And if there's a motion to overrule my ruling, I'd be happy to recognize anybody to make it. Vice Mayor, can I appeal to the chair? I don't think a budget, I don't think a request is coming today. But in the conversation that I had is that this organization just wanted to share an update of their efforts with the council for no more than three to five minutes. But I appreciate the sentiment. But my sense of what we need to do here stands. And I think that council supports that. So well, then, OK, well, then I guess I'll probably ask for an update when I put that item in committee. Thank you. Thank you, chair. OK. Council Member Brown, did you have any specific you did not want to make a specific recommendation at this time? No, sir. OK. Thank you. Next item is the social services. I'm sorry. Council Member Fred Brown has been trying to get my attention. All right. I think it's time for a little bit of clarification on this. You know, when I looked at this list here, we come up with about $4 million discussion items. And I wanted to make sure that that total of $4 million was for everything. And it included some duplications in there. And one duplication, I think it's a duplication, the $232,000 was put in there by three council members. Is that a duplication? Point of order. Point of order. I guess what I'm asking is, I know this isn't an agenda, but I thought we were going down the list. I'm just making a point as to what the list is. I think we need a new number there so that we can determine how we want to spend the rest of it. I think I understand the interest. But I don't think it's material whether there's $4 million or $3 million in the total request. What's clear is we don't have anywhere near enough money to satisfy a quarter. Well, I beg to differ there. Because when I do my addition there, if you take all the duplication away from that $4 million, you're close to the $2.2 million that you can that would be equitable. We don't have, I'm sorry, Council Member Brown, we do not have $2.2 million. We have $1.4 to start. Well, you put fund balance available for reallocation, $2.2 million. But you took, okay, the $1.4 million is where you're at? Okay. All right. I'm sorry. No, that's not correct. I'll seek counsel on this. But we started with $2.2, but Council has already put $745,000 to repay the stabilization fund. So we are working on $1.4 million. That was just for information. That's where we started on before we agreed to do that reallocation. Does that make sense? Okay. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. What I'm interested in doing instead of making a request or make an appeal for this individual request, if the council is interested, I would like to make a motion to move up Council Member Gibbs' recommendation for to have a conversation or discussion about dividing the funds equally between 12 council offices. So, I mean, if it's appropriate, I would make a motion to move that item up in front of the current item. There's only one concern I have with that suggestion, and that is that there's one item pending in the mayor's recommendations, which we have on our agenda before we get to individual council recommendations. I'd make a motion to have the mayor's item presented before talking about divvying it up amongst council offices. Okay. Right now, that's what's planned. Yeah. I guess according to what I'm looking at is I kind of felt like that individual budget request that was presented in the spring would come before the mayor's recommendations. So, your request for $30,000, that comes before the mayor's request, but nothing else from individual account. That's a referral from the spring budget process, and so it's appropriate where it is, the number four item. Okay. That $30,000, but essentially nothing else that's on the individual list until we get to it. Although at that point, I think it would be appropriate to make a motion if you're so inclined. But I'd like to dispense with the $30,000 if you want to make a motion for that, and the additional one item that's in the mayor's request. I guess my thought, Vice Mayor, is if we're going to have a conversation about divvying the funds equally amongst the council offices, I would want to have that conversation and not make an appeal to council for that individual request without having that conversation. Okay. That's fine. Okay. So, I think from the parliamentarian, the correct motion would be if I withdraw my original motion, then I can defer my item to after the mayor's recommendation. Okay. So, the motion is to defer item number four until after the consideration of the mayor's recommendation. So moved. 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. We'll come back to that. That would bring us to, I believe, item number five has been taken care of. Item number six would be $40,000 request for community corrections. Is there a motion? Discussion? Council Member Lamb. I would like to make a motion to move forward with this, and I will state before I make the motion that there were some concerns about the study that was presented to us in 2016 that was presented at the Planning and Public Safety Committee. I went back and I looked at this study. I'm not sure I would really call it a study or an assessment. It was research that was conducted in partial fulfillment of the academic requirements of a graduate course at EKU, not taking anything away from the students at all. However, I will say that in their conclusions, it specifically stated that the jail and LFUCG may want to examine these data in more detail to develop or improve various strategies, interventions, training programs, et cetera. So I would feel like that this $40,000 would be well spent in moving forward with the conclusions that were brought forward in 2016, in May of 2016, actually, is when the study was completed and it was brought forward to us in the August, excuse me, the June 14th Planning and Public Safety Committee. And so, therefore, I move to set aside $40,000 for a corrections recruitment marketing and an operations assessment. So move. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. I second this motion and I go back to repeat what I said a couple of weeks ago. I think this is needed. Understand everybody talked about a consultant coming in and saying, well, this is how you do it. This is not what this consultant should be doing. This consultant should be coming in and saying, these problems exist in other jails and these are how they fix these problems. I don't want somebody coming in here saying that they can do it and change it. I think we need to get a consultant in here that looked at other problems throughout this country, what we have, and they have been fixed. So I want to, those are the kind of consultants that we need to fix this problem. And it is a major problem, folks. And you all know that because I had a gentleman, a good friend of mine, who just spent time in that jail and he said it was the most, he felt sorry for all employees because it is dangerous and he thinks, and he single-handedly saw that himself. So I think this is important that we do this ASAP. So thank you for making that motion. Thank you. Council Member Woolley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate what Council Member Lamb was saying about the recommendations adding for more study. The study that was done in 2016, I think Council Member Evans may have led part of that effort prior to my time on the council. And I'm wondering what we're expecting different than, you know, EKU has the best criminal justice department in the country, what we're expecting different than what we were given. And I don't know if Commissioner Armstrong or Mr. Brown, I know you've been working on that, if you could speak to what, do we know who these consultants are yet? Do we know who we're looking out to? What questions are we asking? While we have problems that we need to fix and I want to do whatever we need to do to fix them, spending $40,000 if it's not going to give us different than what EKU has already given us, and I'll save the rest of my questions. Right, exactly. I understand that. And I'll answer your questions as best I can. I may need you to repeat a couple of them because there was a number of them. But in our research in regards to this, we've reached out to a number of different consulting firms to get an understanding of what's actually available, first and foremost. We've also reached out to the American Jailers Association, National Institute of Corrections, and other assessors and experts in the field to identify what they may be able to look at specifically for us. While the EKU study does have its value, some of the things that it didn't necessarily address to the level that we would like to review, I remember Maloney said this earlier, we want to identify what's systematic in corrections, maybe nationwide or statewide, what steps have been able to correct those, and if some of these issues are specific to our detention facility, which up to this point we haven't seen that, but ultimately there's a lot of detention centers in the state of Kentucky and outside the state of Kentucky that are fighting some of the same issues we are on a continuous basis, and no one in some of those areas that we've contacted came up with a solution per se, but they have tried different things, and we continue to do that. I said that at the last opportunity I got to speak to the council on this matter. We're not waiting for the consultants to come in. We're reaching out to people as much as we can and implementing changes, and we've been doing that for over a year. Some of the changes have worked. Some of the changes obviously have not. That's why I'm standing here right now. But the EKU study, while it does have its value, and as a misnomer or clarifying point, I'm an EKU graduate myself, so I hold the institution in high regard, but a work plan being put together for us by a consultant or assessors would look at things that that study didn't necessarily address to the level that we would like. The individual, Dr. Wells, who was in charge of the study, obviously has background in this area, but experts in the field that actually have time in facilities that have learned the mistakes that have been made and how to correct those. And specifically, some of those areas that isn't necessarily addressed in the past study was organizational structure, management structure, policy procedures, operating, how it complies or compare and contrast, I guess I should say, with other facilities, training, are we providing enough training to our officers, and does it meet the standards that other locations are? We think it does, obviously, but we would like an outside looking at that. The allocation of post, even the facility itself and how the structure of it is. Retention rates continue to be something we're addressing, but maybe some outside input in regards to that. Workflow recruitment, with which we are actually making some inroads there in regards to the utilization possibly of sworn and non-sworn personnel, excuse me, utilization of non-sworn or maybe part-time employees in different positions within the detention center, which is something we're also looking at right now, discipline and grievances. With that being said, any work plan that came back, we would obviously have to take into consideration what those recommendations are, decide if and when we would implement them, what kind of impact it would have on personnel, budgetary concerns. So any work plan that was generated by an assessor, obviously, we would have to take into consideration. I hope you answered or asked a number of questions. I'm not sure if I answered all of them. Generally, yes, and I'm running out of time, so I'll leave it with this and then maybe you can come back. I guess then finally, I gather from that we have not identified a consultant or institution that would actually perform this study for us, do this consulting work for us. And I would be interested to know what, if any, of the recommendations from the EKU study were never implemented. And those, I would leave it with that. To answer the first, we have not identified a specific one. Obviously, we would like to discuss and interview with individuals before we would do that. One of the benefits of having an outside individual look at this or group look at this was they may make recommendations that we're not even thinking about right now that we need to be looking into. So, no, it has not been identified, but we've contacted, as I indicated earlier, permanent entities within the criminal justice system and talked to a number of individuals that have done that work in the past, but they are not necessarily being considered for that position. Just as an advisor on other individuals that may be able to assist us, if the council so determines that the allocation of funds is justified. Okay. Thank you. And, Vice Mayor, if you'll give me just a leeway to close, because thank you for all your answers, but did eat up all my time. I would just say I am for doing what we need to do to fix the problems at the jail. I just want to make sure, and we've got a lot of other folks that have questions that we have discussion, that this is not throwing good money after bad. I think that's just sound policy is always making sure we're getting everything we can from our investment, and I want to make sure that this is the right thing. So, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Masati. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Armstrong. I appreciate you responding to Council Member Worley's questions. I, too, have looked at the study, and there are a lot of things I don't think that have been implemented since the study was brought about when Commissioner Bastin was commissioner. We also talked about putting this in planning and public safety, and I believe Council Member Brown did that, and I intend to have this read out in January. So I think it's important that we hear from some of those members and staff from the jail before we go ahead and deal with a consultant because I think that's one thing we probably, I think it's important that we do. In order for us to get the best bang for our buck, since we've had initial analysis already done and then we've got some, you know, we've all been aware of the information that we received from the jail staff, I think it would be, in my opinion, the best thing to do is to pull this money, put it in the 1105 fund, let's see what happens in January, get their response, decide which is the best way to go, because, again, I think we're going to just, you know, without their input, we may be doing the same thing over again, and I certainly don't want to, as Council Member Worley said, throw good money after bad. So that would be my suggestion. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Jamesborough. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I shared my concerns a couple weeks ago about just doing another study to address issues that we know we've been trying to deal with for a long time. I know the item is in committee and would like to have that conversation before we move forward, but I know the situation at the jail is not going to improve on its own, and I know sometimes at the rate that we move as council, we could not move fast enough to be reactive, and I would like to give the administration as much opportunity to try to work and address these issues. My concern, I guess, some of the questions were answered, and I think today's description of what the administration is asking was more descriptive and more comprehensive of a way to address the issues. But if we put the money in the fund, if we allocate the money to the fund and wait until we have the conversation at the committee meeting, would that put the administration further behind the eight ball, or would you still, knowing that the funds have been designated, able to move forward and work on getting a consultant that could potentially present to us at the committee meeting? If the council so allocates these funds, then there are steps we can begin to take. Obviously, any delay is a concern, but knowing that the funds are available, we could work to identify consultants and have them aware of the concerns and maybe even take part or view or take part in any discussions that we have with the individuals that the Councilmember of the Society was specifically talking about. Obviously, we have a list of concerns that have been provided to us from the union, and we've done numerous interviews with individuals. Also, RethinkLEX is providing us with a lot of information, too. So obviously any delay is not preferred, but if that's the decision of the council, obviously that's something that we can work with and make sure that we're in line after that meeting to hit the ground running. Okay. Well, I'm interested in hearing what other councilmembers had to say, but I'm inclined to support Councilmember Lamb's motion. I think what I heard today, it sounds more of a work plan moving forward as opposed to just another study. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Well, I fully understand what everybody was talking about when I first started. People would talk about we would do consultations and get consultants, and then we wouldn't do anything with them. And I'm going to try and be as delicate as possible with this one, but I think I've, as Councilmember Worley pointed out, this has been an issue that I've been addressing since I've been here. There are issues that are specific to this detention facility. Even in the transition time, I specifically was on the transition team that dealt with the detention center because I wanted to hear what each group had to say. And when you have employees that leave for lower paying jobs for various reasons, because the inmates are different, it's not as a high population, or their bosses are more pleasant, or whatever. There are a lot of different issues, and a lot of them are specific to this jail. So honestly, I'm not sure what a consultant is going to tell us that we don't know. I've talked to several employees retired and currently working, and it is an internal issue. And it is an employee issue, and it is not something that I think this Council can fix with any consultant in here that we choose to hire. I don't know when the golden age of the detention center was, but I do know from, again, past and present employees, there has been a deterioration. And it's been turnover, people retiring, but there was a different level of employee that is just not there anymore. That just seems to be the consensus. I don't know how you bring that back. I think it is just an employee issue. I appreciate the administration trying to do something by bringing in a consultant, but quite frankly, I think we know what the answer is. I just don't know whether there is even the authority to do it, or if there is just not the will to do it. I don't think $40,000 is necessarily a good use of funds. I think we have great people that work at the jail, and I don't think it's any one individual's fault, and I don't think anyone there thinks that. But it's just an issue that's been, it's a plethora of things that have just been piled on. Some of it national trends that happen. Some of it simply individual specific issues to this jail that we can address, and we don't need $40,000 to provide those answers. That's my position, and I think you would, if you spoke to employees out there, they would perhaps provide that same information. And I think Council Member Misali, there are employees who are willing to have those conversations. I've had them. I know they want to be heard. They've come down here, and they've shared their concerns. Again, I don't know if we can provide them the relief that they're seeking, because I think it's beyond our control. But again, I don't think a consultant can provide those answers either. But that's my two cents. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First off, every taxpayer in Fayette County should take pride in their council, because the 15 folks up here know this budget and are working it down to the last dollar, and everyone should appreciate that on behalf of every dollar they give us. There are various opinions on this $40,000, but if you look at the way it's in there under number six, it's for corrections, recruitment, marketing, and for operations assessment. Whether we do the operations assessment or not, I think there should be, could be agreement that we need to help with recruitment out there. And I think of this $40,000, about $15,000 is for the recruitment, to advertise to get more folks out there. I think we all understand we would like to have those folks out there, whether we study the event or not. I don't know that the jail ever had a golden age, but anyway. So with that in mind, I'd like to offer an amendment to appropriate this as $15,000 for corrections, recruitment, marketing. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? It's not working. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. I didn't know if the cue on the screen was one from previous. So I would ask Council Member Farmer, then, so you're just wanting to take it from $40,000 down to the $15,000 and to leave the $30,000, $25,000 back in the pool of money? Is that a fair statement? And to use it for recruitment, marketing, not for study. Just the $15,000 for recruitment, study, and then that means that? No, no, recruitment, marketing. Excuse me, recruitment, marketing. Yes, ma'am. Okay, $15,000 and not have anything for any type of assessment. That's the point of the amendment, yes, ma'am. Okay, I just want to make sure I'm clear on that. I think that what I will say, and, you know, we all received a document from the union organization about a survey that was sent to us, the results of it were sent to us maybe two months ago. I believe everybody received that along with the media and the administration. I want to bring to my attention of my colleagues that the research conclusions just three years ago state that it's presenting the ranking of the scale about favorable, ambivalent, or less favorable perceptions. And I find it very interesting that in this document that was sent to us in 2016, that was presented to us at Planning and Public Safety, and compare that to the survey results that were brought to us, there's a huge difference, a major difference. In fact, under the 2016 document that was sent to us, it has the less favorable perceptions were those that answered less of average of 2.5. There's nothing on this, and I know this is not going to be, I wish I had made a copy for everybody now, but there's nothing on this list that lists about negative activity, negative effectivity, public perception, organizational cooperation, turnover intention, trust, employment ratios, fairness, effective commitment, workplace trust, management trust, role conflict, fear of reprisal, supervisor support, continuance commitment, job satisfaction, group cohesion, interactional justice, normative commitment, positive effectivity, organizational whistleblowing propensity, alternative employment, management cynicism, religiosity, personal efficacy, instrumental communication, organizational citizenship, and individual whistleblowing propensity. Not one of those items in the 2016 study was under 2.5. Not one. And I think that is a huge difference between what we received in the survey results just two months ago. And so I think that there is an opportunity for us here today, whether 15,000 and 25,000, 15 for the marketing and 25 for operations assessment, I think there's a huge opportunity for us today to delve into the information from the FOP and this research from EKU to be able to look at and figure out by going forward and finding a better solution. So I would not support this motion to just go with the marketing. I do believe marketing is important. But I do believe that we need to stick with trying to look at what we were sent in 2016 and the information we received two months ago and to figure out about going forward along with all the information that has been delved into by the administration that has been stated today. So I do not support this motion. I do think that we need to move forward with the 40,000. And if it means that we need to put more than 40,000 in there, I'm willing to do that, too, if that's what we need to do for the assessment. Because I think that this is an opportunity for us to move forward. And I hope that my colleagues will see this. And I will be glad to make a copy of this and have it disseminated to everybody immediately if that's what you would like to see before we support this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plummer, are you on the amendment? Yes, Vice Mayor, I am. Council Member Plummer. Well, with all due respect to Council Member Farmer, my background is marketing and $15,000 is basically nothing. I mean, you're not going to be able to do much for that at all. So I would not support that. I believe it needs to go into committee. And I was here in 2016 to celebrate, and I remember so many meetings where this was discussed. And we had the results, and this is just one more consultant coming in. But I do think on the amendment that the $15,000 is not enough, and it would be just throwing it into the wind. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I'd like to thank Council Member Lamb for her remarks. But just to go back and hear some of the people's concerns about this jail, when I became CAO, the first major problem I had, the mayor and I dealt with was the jail, the same thing you all are hearing today. Before I came on, I was on the council like everybody else was. We had the same problem with the jail then. And you can hire 300 people. It isn't going to help you. I mean, I wouldn't want that job. And I'm telling you, it's the most dangerous job I've ever seen. Now, to me, maybe it is time we do get outside source, because this inside source is not working. It hasn't been working for 15 years. And you have a chance to bring somebody from the outside, listen to what the other people are having problems, and seeing how they're fixing it. But this is not working, guys. And the last thing I want to do is put those guys in danger, and they are in danger now. And keep kicking this dang cane down the road. It's not working. So, please, listen to the folks that work there. Listen to the administration. They said they can't fix it. We've got council members sitting up here. We don't know what to do. Well, maybe it's time we bring people outside that are looking at these other things and fix the damn problem, guys. This is a serious problem. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate what Council Member Farmer is trying to do here, I think, trying to find a little more consensus given some of the criticisms. So I feel compelled to better state my questions, comments, and criticisms. We're not so much that I do not support the study or the marketing or however the $40,000 is put together. I think it's the taxpayers of Fayette County deserve a council that asks questions and understands what the administration is putting forward. And I think that Commissioner Armstrong is unbelievably talented and good at what he does. But until the answer to my questions there, we had not been told what they intended exactly to do with this study, how far along they were in finding an institution or a consultant, the questions they were going to ask. So the nature of my criticisms, particularly when I made the statement trading good money for bad, I meant I want to avoid that. And I believe having heard from Commissioner Armstrong, I support the full $40,000 being used for a study or marketing or however best that works. However, I do want those questions and answers further discussed in the Planning and Public Safety Committee like we've talked. So I won't support the amendment while I appreciate its intent. I feel like I may have started some of this discontent. That wasn't what I intended. I think that this is not a bad use of the money. I needed to be told and the citizens of Fayette County needed to be told. And I believe that Commissioner Armstrong has answered those questions today. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sardi. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Farmer, for bringing forth the amendment, but I don't think $15,000 is going to make that job more attractive. I think we've got more serious problems than that. So, again, I would just suggest that we listen to the people who work at the jail, get their input, work along with the commissioner and the administration and go forward and make a decision. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else signed on? So the amendment is to reduce the amount to $15,000 and to use it only for marketing and recruitment. All those in favor, please say aye. Okay. If we can have electronic voting, please. That vote reflects failure of the motion. Before I recognize Council Member Brown, Council Member Malauulu, would you take the chair for a moment, please? I'd like to be recognized. Sure. Thank you. We're back to the underlying motion, and I'm going to suggest a further amendment, and that is to essentially follow the suggestion that Council Member Sardi has made, and that is to keep the $40,000 in the 1105 fund until we have had an opportunity to have this in committee in January to get more information, both from the people who are presently employed and from the administration about what specifically the consultant would bring that we don't have, basically, the internal capacity for. So the motion is take the $40,000, keep it in the 1105 fund, for this particular purpose to be determined going forward after the meeting in January. So moved. Second. There's been a second. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Yes. Council Member Lamb. Vice Mayor, I would ask, and Council Member Mazzotti, in light of the importance of this issue, I do appreciate the fact that we want to discuss it in planning and public safety. I do appreciate that, and I see value in that. Is there a way that we could somehow, I don't know when the meeting is scheduled in January. I don't know if it's at the beginning or if it's at the end. Is there an opportunity for us to have a special meeting prior to that at an earlier time? Would that be a consideration? It would be. Sorry, it would be. We have no planning and public safety in December, and I'm not sure they can get that information as quickly to us. January 21st is when the schedule, is that correct, 21st, is when we've got it scheduled. I don't know when we even come back from recess. I don't have those dates in front of us. Maybe Stacy can advise that. January 15th, I think, is the Tuesday. I don't even know if we have another committee meeting on the 14th, do we? I do. Okay, so the 21st, it looks like that's it. If we could do another, I guess we'd have to see what everyone's schedule is to be able to see if we could, and they could get that information to us. Well, what I'm just going to suggest is, and I know it's two weeks difference, but two weeks is two weeks. I would be willing to switch general gov with planning and public safety in January so that you can have the first meeting come back in January. I mean, I'm just trying to move it up, and so that's my suggestion. That's fine with me if staff can get that done. It's one week. Okay, well, never mind. It's a week. I get it, I get it, I get it. This is my amendment. So, Councilwoman Warren, if you continue to chair until this is. Do we need a motion? Why don't we just do the motion first on this, and then we'll make the motion on your tuition if we have to. I don't think you need a motion. That's okay. I realize that it's just a week separate, and so it's no big deal. I'll support the motion, so. Okay. Any other discussion on this motion? Okay, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Would you please have a count, please? Thank you. That motion passed. Vice Mayor, you can have the chair back. Thank you. I think that brings us to the underlying motion, which is now as amended. Is there further discussion on the motion? I think the motion is to take the $40,000 and keep it in the 1105 fund with the earmark for that particular purpose as proposed until we have had a chance to have a full discussion of the issue in January in committee. So the motion passed. The amendment was still discussed in the underlying motion. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Commissioner, can you speak to the would it be any benefit? I know $15,000 doesn't seem much to market and recruit, but what seems like a lot to me is the 60 days about in between when we're going to have this conversation again. So would it be beneficial to maybe separate the $15,000 to market and recruit separate from the $25,000 that we're looking at talking to a consultant about an action plan moving forward? Originally, the plan was that we would do the assessment at any money left over. Obviously, as it was pointed out, we want to be the best stewards for the taxpayer dollars. If we were able to get the assessment at $20,000 or $25,000 or $30,000, whatever would be remaining we would use for the recruitment efforts and the media. So having access to that early would be beneficial in some of the classes that we're having, but it won't have a significant impact, I don't think. Okay. Yeah, I'm just thinking about the time it takes to recruit, go through the hiring process. I mean, we could probably have some people hired or in place to address the concerns. So I would look to make an amendment to the motion to keep $25,000 in committee in regards to the study moving forward and allocate $15,000 towards marketing recruiting effective as soon as possible. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb, is this on the motion? Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Commissioner Armstrong. I want to make sure, I mean, if this is beneficial in what you all are trying to accomplish, I can support it. But I think I understood you to say that your primary purpose for the money was the study and what that cost, and then whatever was left over would be used for marketing and recruitment, potentially based on what came out of the study. So I want to make sure we're not getting a cart before the horse. Not necessarily what came out of the study, sir. How we viewed it, not knowing the exact amount of the work plan assessment, we didn't know exactly how much that would cost, because ultimately there are costs that may be associated in regards to the number of individuals actually engaged in it, travel, things like that. The plan was the $40,000. Anything left over after we contracted for the assessment would be used for recruiting. Yes. I mean, I think either we're talking about the difference between $25,000 here, $15,000 there. I say we either go ahead and give it to them, or it's our thought that we talk about it in committee one way or another. I mean, I think giving some now, some later, I think we either peel back our committee discussion, the motion we just had, and we go ahead and give them the $40,000, or we say you've got to wait until January, and if we think 60 days is going to completely shut down what they're trying to accomplish at the jail, let's give them the money. If 60 days and further study is more important and better makes us understand how they're using this $40,000, then I think we do that. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Again, I just want to emphasize that $15,000 for marketing is not a good investment on our part. Just to buy one billboard is $7,000. So it's just not worth the $15,000. But I did have a question. Commissioner, what did we pay back in 2016, do you know, for the last study? There was no costs associated. Okay. I couldn't remember that brand new then. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to thank Council Member James Brown for pulling the torch back out on this. I appreciate it. The $15,000 figure was something that came to me through conversation with the Commissioner. So it's not a number that I picked out of the air. It's one that I think they had in mind. And I would just say, you know, this isn't about buying a billboard. It's about marketing to people to come get them to work at one of the worst jobs we have in Fayette County, and it's at the jail. And then I would just go further. If anyone here really thinks that one $25,000 study is going to fix the jail, I think you're wasting your time thinking that. Because that's not enough money to fix the jails. Not enough money to get a proper study of what's going on out there. Give it to them, don't give it to them, whatever. It's not a $25,000 answer, I'll guarantee you that. Thank you. Thank you. Again, Council Member Maloney, if you would take the chair, I'd like to speak. I think two parts. One, I agree with Council Member Plowman. $15,000 is not enough to have an impact with whatever you do. And so I don't believe it's a very good use of money. The commissioner has already told us that the plan is not to necessarily spend $15,000, but to add that if we go ahead with a consultant, if there are funds left, to use that in the efforts that the jail is already, I presume, employing in marketing and so on. And secondly, I think the question of whether it makes sense to hire a consultant is something that right now we do not know the answer to. I certainly don't have confidence that I know what a consultant would do that we cannot do internally. I don't have any confidence that what a consultant would bring to us that we couldn't find out for ourselves. That's not to say that I'm not convinced, and it's not to say that I'm not concerned about the problems that we have had with the jail for so many years. I believe there are some underlying issues which are not about rearranging the structure, the governance, et cetera. It has to do with the way in which this job is perceived and the stress that people are under when they perform it. And ways to relieve that, there's no simple answer to that question. But I would like to have the administration have the opportunity to make a full case about what a consultant would bring to us. And I'd like to have that, as I've said, that discussion in the committee meeting in January and then to proceed from there. So I'm not in favor of the amendment. Thank you. With the Chair back, Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to ask Mr. Armstrong, I know we had received some information about the classes and the recruitment that you all have been doing over the last couple of months, but I would like to know, do you currently have a recruitment class being trained right now in corrections? Yes, ma'am. If I'm not mistaken, we have two actually occurring at this time. Yes. I'm sorry, I don't have those numbers in front of me. However, we also are in the process of starting another class, and those names will be coming to the Council very soon at the beginning of December. And we're looking at a good-sized class, I'll just put it that way. I don't want to necessarily put a number to it because I don't want to be held to that number because they're still in the polygraph and the background process. But if it materializes the way we see it, it will probably be the biggest class we've had in a number of years. Okay. So you refer to two classes that you currently have in training right now. Perhaps it would help me to understand the number of weeks of training. Five weeks. Five weeks of academy, and then they have an FTO for a short time, and then they hit the street, if I'm not mistaken. Is that correct? I'm sorry, it's ten. I was thinking the FTO. I'm sorry, it's ten weeks of training. So there's ten weeks training, and you have two classes that are going to get right now. Smaller classes. Two smaller classes. If I'm remembering my discussion with Director Haney yesterday correctly, I can get the exact numbers for you. It's actually in my binder, and I can provide that to you whenever I walk back. Okay. This is important, I think, with all of the questions that my colleagues have asked and very good points made, I think. If there is not, if you're in the process of a class, of a training class now, and you have a recruiting class that's almost in the, you know, almost ready to start, then maybe it would be best that we wait until after January. You know, it's all about the information that we have before us and the facts and understanding what is happening. Oftentimes we make decisions up here without even knowing if the government can move forward with something. So I think that this is valuable information, and based on that, I think that we would need to wait until after the January. I still will leave my second on the motion, but I think that it's going to better suit us if we wait until January to continue this discussion. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up. So the amendment is to allocate $15,000 now for, is that correct? I got the right amendment? Yes. For marketing and recruitment. Can we have a voting screen, please? One second. Was he on the prevailing side? Can you bring that up? I need two more votes. Point of order. Vice Mayor, I hate to bring this up, but he wasn't on the prevailing side, so this is actually an amendment that he probably can't even bring up, can he, even though it's going to fail? Well, I believe that the amendment was slightly different from the amendment that was, and I'll ask the parliamentarian. I think that it was materially different enough that this was a separate amendment, and it might be an academic exercise given the vote. And I'll accept that ruling. And there's one more, Councilman. Here we go. That vote reflects failure of the motion. I believe that brings us back to now the original motion, which is to hold those funds in the 1105, et cetera. Further discussion? Seeing none, I guess we'll do it electronically again, please. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. That would bring us down to individual Councilmember recommendations. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As I indicated in the email yesterday, I'd like to make a motion to divide what remains 15 ways. By the way, there was a typo in the sheet for the individual request on line 21 that said I wanted to do that by 12. Again, that was a typo. I always intended to do it 15 ways. So what I do, I move to divide the remaining fund balance monies so that one-fifteenth of the total is allotted to each Council office to be used in accordance with the Council project expenditure policy. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Vice Mayor, can he repeat the motion, please? I'll ask Councilmember Gibbs if he would, please. Sure. And also, you know, I think Melissa may have the running total for us and how much this would entail, because originally it was 675, right? And I think it's going to be altered. But, at any rate, the motion is I move to divide the remaining fund balance monies so the one-fifteenth of the total fund is allocated to each Council office to be used in accordance with the Council project expenditure policy. Now, that's a policy we passed in 2015 and it was circulated yesterday. 2016. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer. The first was just operational. How much money is that and how much would one-fifteenth be since we're here at the slot machine? The current running total after everything that's been approved is $715,171. Divided by 15 is $47,678. So thank you very much. I appreciate that. If we pass this motion, would that effectively end this meeting? Yes. It would. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councilmember Evans. Again, I'd reiterate what I'd said earlier, that this is not money that I appreciate the desire to want to do things within our own districts and I've got my own ideas. This is not money. This is not new money. This is money that we have off the backs of divisions that made cuts. This is money that I think we need to put back into the general fund because that is where it came from. This is money that we need to use that needs to go towards the budget for next year. I appreciate the sentiment, but this is not new money. We are going to have revenue issues and we might as well get used to it, but we need to start saving. We've got to make up from what I believe is $29 million, and I know people might say, oh, well, $700,000 isn't much, but it's $700,000 that we don't have to find next year. So I would just ask us to truly consider being true stewards of the taxpayer's money because, again, this is not our money. This is not new money. This is money that was a result of our employees skimping and scraping, not having hires, doing more in the same with much less, and I think it needs to go back into the budget. So I appreciate the motion, but I would be opposed to it. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would echo what the Council Member Evans said. I've always never have supported this kind of money from the years. A couple of years ago we had $266,000 for each of the Council Members. I did not support that and I did not support it. Back in the 90s and 2000 we had $100,000 a couple of times. And the reason I don't support it this time is last time we had surplus. We had revenue coming in that we didn't expect. We have not got any revenue coming in. Next year we're going to have to come up with additional $3 million more, which puts it to $9 million for our pension. And the following year it's going to be $12 million. And I think the message we're sending here is not a very good one. With the recession, everybody sitting up here knows that a recession is coming. We all know that. And I don't want it happening. We've seen it with the net profit. The net profit has not been good, and I'm following my former Council Member Kevin Stennett, who complained about it last year. And I continue to echo what he said. I just think this is the wrong time to be sending money. And if it is going to pass, which it will probably will, I'm going to put my money back into the general funds. So I just want everybody to go on record that I do not support this. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm going to support this motion because, you know, even though this isn't new money, it's money that's in the budget, we make cuts as well, to our Council offices. So if this is money that we can do for one-time projects in our districts, and I think us as Council Members know intimately what the needs are of our districts, whether it's paving one street, two streets, whether it's putting in traffic mitigation where neighbors have asked us to, I think this is the opportunity to do it. I don't see where other opportunities present themselves for us to focus and do projects in our district. And even though $47,000 is not a lot of money, but I think if we use it intentionally and focus efforts in our districts, our constituents can see the impact of it. But, you know, I think we all make cuts, and I think we didn't put a lot of money towards capital expenses. And if we can use this money, whether it's Council Members pulling together or looking for opportunities where they exist, I think it's the best use of the money holistically. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate and will support the motion that Council Member Gibbs has brought forward. I do agree with the comments of Council Member Evans and Maloney. I do believe that we do need to be very fiscally responsible when we have this type of money. But I'm looking at the list here, and one of the recommendations was from Council Member Fred Brown, and it was for the sidewalk assistance program for $20,000. And so I see there's value in being able to support other recommendations that are on here that will help our constituents. And so I have, and of course you looked at the agenda, I had two small items that were $10,000 total in my district. But I will say that, and I'm going to say this, I just learned this last week, the Arboretum is moving forward with their new visitor center, and so I just wanted to allow my constituents the opportunity to know that they have committed $3 million, U.K. has committed $3 million, and there is an opportunity here I think that I'm going to take to give a portion of this from the LFUCG to the Arboretum for that visitor center that actually serves numerous citizens and visitors of this city. So while I appreciate and I will support the motion, I just wanted it to be known that the projects that I will spend the money on will be for the entire city and not just for my district. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to elaborate a little bit of what Council Member James Brown said. We have real needs in our districts, and not to be critical of the Mayor, but typically the Mayor will call you in to ask what your budget priorities are for your district. We did not have that meeting this year because the projections were so dire. There are many needs in my district, 46,000, 47,000 would help me out some. There are projects in my neighborhoods that would never get funded in the Mayor's budget more than likely, and I can't cover them with NDF. This is a way for us to get things done in our district. Back in 2015, I think it was, when we had the $266,000, I got lots and lots of stuff done. And, again, it would never have made it into the Mayor's budget. It would have never been covered by NDF. It's a huge opportunity for Council people to get something done in their district. And so I hope you guys will support this motion. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Gibbs, for bringing this forward. I think this is a fantastic idea and use of this money. I'll be supporting this. And I want to say, I've all talked today about being good stewards of taxpayer money. And while I respect Council Member Evans and Council Member Maloney's belief of setting the money aside, that's one way to be a good steward, but another way of being a good steward of promises kept. And, you know, we have now today rewarded our employees for their hard work and their cuts. We have replenished our reserves, as we promised the taxpayers we would do. And now it's time to provide the value to our constituents with the money that they've given us. And you see all up and down our list, we all have various parks projects, sidewalk projects. These are things that directly impact day-to-day life. And, as Council Member Gibbs said, we can take, you know, we each and everyone know how to use this small amount in our neighborhoods. And when I say promises kept, you know, we have had parks projects that we have announced. We've had ribbon-cutting ceremonies. And then given the dire economic times, we said, sorry, we can't do that anymore. Well, this is the type of money you can go back and say we are going to do it. And I think it's a valuable use of these funds, and I support it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney, can I ask you again to take the chair? I'd like to speak to this. Thank you. Not having a district, it's hard for me to argue against the value for each of the districts and each of the district council members to have some funds to be able to allocate. But I think I've been fairly consistent in my thinking about the way in which the budget process works, and I've always wanted to compare any proposal against any other proposal for the council as a whole to look at the priorities and to make a judgment as the council. And so I guess what I don't like is ad hoc budgeting, and this is essentially what this is. So I don't expect to prevail, but I want to go on record as being opposed. Thank you. I'll take back the chair. Any further discussion? We have a voting screen, please. That vote reflects passage of the motion, and I believe unless there is further business to transact, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Thank you. Now you're gone, and Tom's is moving on. I'll be crying, crying, crying, crying, crying, crying. Oh, Mary.