# Council Work Session - December 3, 2019 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · December 3, 2019 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4910 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4910?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2019-12-03 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 6, 2026 - **Length**: 16,420 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Council Work Session convened on December 3, 2019, at 3:00 PM with the Mayor presiding. During this session, the Council addressed 2 agenda items and conducted 7 votes on various matters before them. The meeting included 2 public comments from community members. The Council successfully approved a CDL Supplement Increase, while the Ivy Bridge Drive Barricading item was tabled for future consideration. The work session format allowed Council members to deliberate on these municipal matters and take formal action where appropriate. ## Attendance Thirteen councilmembers were present for the meeting: • Councilmember Farmer • Councilmember Ellinger • Councilmember Bledsoe • Councilmember Evans • Councilmember Fred Brown • Vice Mayor Kaye • Councilmember Massotti • Councilmember Lamb • Councilmember James Brown • Councilmember Maloney • Councilmember Gibbs • Councilmember McKern • Councilmember Reynolds **Absent:** • Councilmember Plowman No councilmembers arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted seven votes during the meeting, with most items passing through voice votes and one significant item requiring multiple roll call votes. **Routine Approvals** Three resolutions passed unanimously by voice vote in quick succession [timestamp: 00:02-00:06]: • Motion by Councilmember Farmer, seconded by Councilmember Ellinger, to authorize the mayor to execute amendment number one to work order number eight with Computer Sciences Corporation - **Passed** • Motion by Councilmember Bledsoe, seconded by Councilmember Farmer, to authorize the mayor to execute a first amendment to the software as a service agreement with Benevate Inc. - **Passed** • Motion by Councilmember Evans, seconded by Councilmember Farmer, to authorize the mayor to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Lexington Housing Authority - **Passed** **Ivy Bridge Drive Barricading** The most contentious item involved the permanent barricading of Ivy Bridge Drive, which required multiple votes [timestamp: 00:08-00:14]: • Initial motion by Councilmember Fred Brown, seconded by Councilmember McKern - **Failed 6-7** - **For:** Fred Brown, Maloney, Lamb, Farmer, Ellinger, Bledsoe - **Against:** Vice Mayor Kaye, Evans, Massotti, James Brown, Gibbs, McKern, Reynolds • Motion to reconsider by Councilmember James Brown, seconded by Councilmember Fred Brown - **Passed 9-4** - **For:** James Brown, Fred Brown, Maloney, Lamb, Farmer, Ellinger, Bledsoe, Gibbs, McKern - **Against:** Vice Mayor Kaye, Evans, Massotti, Reynolds • Amendment by Vice Mayor Kaye, seconded by Councilmember James Brown, to postpone the vote until Councilmember Plowman is present - **Passed by voice vote** **CDL Supplement Increase** Motion by Councilmember Lamb, seconded by Councilmember James Brown, to increase the CDL supplement by one dollar for a half year starting January 1, 2020 - **Passed by voice vote** [timestamp: 01:30]. This increase is contingent upon reallocation of fund balance. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council addressed several financial matters during the meeting, totaling approximately $152,152 in appropriations and contract modifications. **Personnel Appropriations** • The Council approved an appropriation of $96,000 to increase the CDL (Commercial Driver's License) supplement by one dollar for a half-year period **Service Agreements and Contracts** • A $200 agreement with Kentucky Humanities Council, Incorporated was approved • The Council authorized a First Amendment to the Purchase of Services Agreement with Lexington Children's Museum, Incorporated for $41,500 • A change order number one to the Consultant Services Agreement with EOP Architects was approved for $14,452.28 The largest single expenditure was the CDL supplement increase, representing the city's investment in retaining qualified commercial drivers. The Lexington Children's Museum contract amendment represented the second-largest financial commitment discussed. The Kentucky Humanities Council agreement was the smallest dollar amount considered, while the EOP Architects change order fell in the middle range of the financial actions taken. These financial actions reflect ongoing operational needs and previously established service relationships with local organizations and contractors. The CDL supplement increase suggests efforts to address staffing challenges in positions requiring commercial driving credentials, while the museum and humanities council agreements indicate continued support for educational and cultural programming in the community. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, both focusing on waste management workforce issues. **Javier Perez** [timestamp: 02:50] spoke about waste management working conditions, emphasizing the demanding nature of the work performed by city waste management employees. Perez highlighted the hard work and early morning hours that these employees endure to maintain city cleanliness and urged council members to consider their dedication and efforts when making budget-related decisions. **Deion Henry** [timestamp: 03:30], identified as a union president, addressed challenges with CDL driver retention within the waste management department. Henry pointed to low pay as a significant factor in the city's difficulty retaining Commercial Driver's License holders, noting that private sector opportunities offer more competitive compensation. He emphasized the importance of implementing the proposed pay increase to address this retention issue. Both speakers focused their comments on supporting the waste management workforce, with particular attention to compensation and working conditions as key factors affecting city services. ## Contested Items The Council meeting featured two significant contested items that generated substantial debate among members. **Ivy Bridge Drive Barricading** The Council faced a split vote regarding the barricading of Ivy Bridge Drive, with members divided on whether to bypass the standard procedural requirements for street closures. The disagreement centered on the appropriateness of circumventing established processes, leading to a failed initial vote. Following the unsuccessful vote, the matter was brought up for reconsideration, indicating the contentious nature of the issue and the Council's struggle to reach consensus on the proper procedural approach. **CDL Supplement Increase** A heated discussion emerged over funding mechanisms for increasing CDL (Commercial Driver's License) supplements. Council members engaged in extensive debate examining multiple funding sources and carefully weighing the potential impacts on other areas of the municipal budget. The discussion highlighted competing priorities within the budget allocation process, with members expressing different perspectives on how to balance the need for CDL supplement increases against other municipal funding requirements. The debate demonstrated the challenging nature of budget decisions where increasing funding in one area necessarily affects resources available for other city services and programs. Both contested items reflect broader themes of procedural adherence versus expedited action in the case of the street barricading, and fiscal responsibility versus targeted investment in the case of the CDL supplement funding. These discussions underscore the complex decision-making process Council members face when balancing competing interests and priorities within municipal governance. ## CDL Supplement Increase [timestamp: 01:30] The council considered a resolution to increase the CDL (Commercial Driver's License) supplement for city employees. The proposed increase would add one dollar to the existing CDL supplement for a six-month period beginning January 1, 2020. The discussion centered on addressing ongoing retention and recruitment challenges the city faces with CDL-qualified drivers. Key speakers included Councilmember Lamb, Vice Mayor Kaye, and Councilmember James Brown, who participated in the deliberation of this workforce issue. The half-year implementation period suggests the council viewed this as either a trial measure or a temporary solution while potentially developing longer-term strategies for driver retention. The modest dollar increase reflects a targeted approach to providing additional compensation for employees who maintain the specialized commercial driving credentials required for certain city positions. The resolution was approved by the council, authorizing the CDL supplement increase to take effect at the start of 2020. This action demonstrates the council's recognition of the importance of maintaining adequate staffing levels among city workers who operate commercial vehicles, likely including positions in public works, utilities, or other municipal services requiring CDL certification. ## Ivy Bridge Drive Barricading [timestamp: 00:08] The council considered a resolution to permanently barricade Ivy Bridge Drive during the meeting. The proposal generated debate among council members regarding proper procedures for street closures. Councilmember Fred Brown, Vice Mayor Kaye, and Councilmember Evans were the primary participants in the discussion. The main concern raised centered on whether the resolution would bypass the usual process required for street closures. Council members expressed reservations about moving forward with the barricading without following standard procedures typically required for such actions. The debate focused on ensuring proper protocols were followed rather than taking shortcuts through the resolution process. After discussion, the council decided to table the resolution rather than proceed with a vote. This outcome suggests the council wanted additional time to review the proper procedures or gather more information before making a final decision on the Ivy Bridge Drive barricading proposal. The tabling of the item indicates the council prioritized following established processes over expediting the street closure, despite whatever circumstances may have prompted the original barricading request. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to walk on a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute amendment number one to work order number eight with Computer Sciences Corporation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to walk on a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a first amendment to the software as a service agreement with Benevate Inc. - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to walk on a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Lexington Housing Authority - **Motion** — failed (6-7): Motion to walk on a resolution approving and directing the permanent barricading of Ivy Bridge Drive - **Motion** — passed (9-4): Motion to reconsider the vote on Ivy Bridge Drive barricading - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to amend to postpone the vote on Ivy Bridge Drive until Councilmember Plowman is present - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to increase the CDL supplement by a dollar for a half year starting January 1, 2020 --- ## Full transcript Heraklion Welcome. We're going to go ahead, it's a hair after three o'clock, and I'd like to go ahead and call to order the Council Work Session of December 3, 2019. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. Is there anyone, no one signed up, all right. And we do have a docket for today's five o'clock Council meeting. And so we have docket approval rezonings. Could I hear a motion please. All right, Councilmember Farmer moves approval Councilmember Ellinger seconds. Now are there any questions. And this is the time I think several of you have walk on. And it would be great to do them early so that the clerk can get those in the queue for tonight. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. This is a motion to walk on on behalf of the administration. I moved to place on the docket for the December 3, 2019 Council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute amendment number one to work order number eight under the agreement with Computer Sciences Corporation for risk master, pardon me, risk master upgrade at no additional cost the urban county government so moved. Councilmember Ellinger seconded that motion. Are there any questions. All those in favor, please say aye. Is anyone opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. This is a walk on on behalf of the administration. I'm going to place on the docket for the December 3, 2019 Council meeting a resolution authorizing directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county council to execute the first amendment to the software as a service S.A.A.S. services agreement with Benevate Inc. to allow two additional users for the neighborly software program for the office of the chief development officer to cost additional cost not to exceed $5,700 so moved. Councilmember Farmer seconds that. Are there any questions. All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Is anyone opposed. That motion passes. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Mayor. On behalf of the administration, I move to place on the docket under resolution first reading a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to execute a memorandum of understanding with the Lexington Housing Authority to provide assistance with the Lexington Housing Authority's family unification program. So moved. Councilmember Farmer seconded. All right. Do I hear any questions. Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed. That motion passes. Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to walk on. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd council meeting a resolution approving and directing the permanent barricading of Ivy Bridge Drive at its southern terminus and waiving the procedure set forth in resolution 339-81. Do I hear a second? Councilmember McKern seconded. All right. Are there any questions? Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I think many councilmembers have gotten information about this particular motion. I just want to be clear. The motion is to basically suspend our usual rules and the procedure for deciding upon a closure and go directly to the issue. And while I think there may be some merit in this closure, I see no reason why we would suspend our usual procedure and put it directly on the docket. If somebody has different information about why this would be pressing, I would be happy to hear it. But the council has in its rules a procedure for considering closures that allows for input by the staff. It allows for public meetings if necessary. It really gives us a chance to consider the pros and the cons of the particular closing. So I would urge my councilmembers to vote this particular resolution down. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. You're welcome. Does anyone else wish to speak? Councilmember Massotti. Thank you, Mayor. Is Keith Horne in the audience? Keith, I think I sent you an email this morning regarding this. Can you just give us some more information on the procedure for this, please? Basically, there's a resolution from 1981, Resolution 339-81, where the council established a process to consider permanently barricading parts of streets. And it sets forth an entire process, the first part of which is an administrative review, which you probably more regularly see in when there's a request to actually permanently close a street where each division or department looks at and responds to the requested barricading. That happened in this case. The departments and divisions have reviewed it, but from that point, the reason why there's a request for waiver of the process is the rest of that process where, theoretically, the Vice Mayor puts it in the appropriate committee, a committee considers everything. As the Vice Mayor said, you potentially have a public hearing to hear the pros and cons of it, and it goes through the committee process, gets reported out, favorably or not, and then the whole council can act on it. Thank you. That's all, Mayor. All right. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Mayor. So, Vice Mayor Kaye, what would the critical path be if we do not pass this motion, potentially? The critical path would be the one that's laid out in our existing resolutions. As our attorney has just explained to us, there'd be administrative review, there'd be then reference to a committee for consideration, then bringing it forward to the whole council with public meetings if and as necessary. So, would that happen automatically based on this action, or would we have to do something to provoke the move? At this point, I'm not sure. I thought initially that the appropriate thing to do at this point would be to move to amend, to place it in committee, but I don't know if there's been the administrative review that would be required before that. I think a request to begin this process would be appropriate. Either by way of voting it down and having a new motion or amending this one. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. Are there other comments to the motion? Councilmember Fred Brown. Yeah, I want to defend my walk-on. To some degree. I have talked with Councilmember Kathy Plowman in Center District, but it's close to the 8th District, and we've talked about it, and I think she's talked to several councilmembers. This is not something that's just come popped up. They've been trying to get something done to the Neighborhood Association Group since February of 2019. How did Johnny come lately in that respect? I understand that barricading the street does have its, you know, it's a different type of thing, and we've discussed this before. I think there's some extenuating circumstances, and this particular project is the reason that I felt like that I could support it, and then since Kathy's had surgery, she couldn't make it today. I felt like that it wouldn't bother me to go ahead and walk it on, but I do need to defend my actions on it. Ivy Bridge Drive is not conducive to large amounts of traffic flow. You'd have to see it on a map. The road is a small local street with two small traffic circles. Traffic circles are much smaller than modern roundabouts and often replace stop signs. The Hobbs Way and Forest Lake Drive connection is less than a half a mile from Ivy Bridge. And lastly, Lexington's emergency services are closer to the neighborhood than those in Jessamine County. And I say that because this is right on the border of Jessamine County, and that's what turned me to the, and looked at it, and I said, that's okay with me because we don't need another through traffic street coming in from the other county, and this street here abuts up to actually the Jessamine County line. And I thought that was unique in its respect, and I think Ms. Plowman has brought it forward at the request of all of that neighborhood group, neighborhood association. So I think it does have some extenuating circumstances, so I support it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I want to echo what Council Member Brown said. I've been out there. It is Jessamine County that I'm concerned about. To me, once we open that up, there's going to be a lot of wear and tear on that road. We, Lexington, will be paying for that road, and most of the traffic could be coming from Jessamine County. And to me, Jessamine County has a right to build the roads the correct way so they can keep the traffic over there. I'm not trying to be against, but we don't need to keep bringing more traffic into something. So I do support. I've been out there and saw it. It is on the line. It would be a different situation if it was in Lexington, and I agree with the way you do it. You have to have neighborhood meetings because you may have a neighborhood across from in Lexington that a Council Member may represent. They said they want to go through that. But to me, I just think we have to make sure we are looking out for the best for Lexington's interests. And I'm not trying to be a bad neighbor, but I just think that land, that traffic pattern cannot put up that much more traffic there. So I would support Council Member Brown's recommendation. Are there other comments? Council Member Lamb and then Council Member Evans. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to add my support as well. I have spoken with the constituent, the Neighborhood Association out there as well, and they were explaining to me that the process that they have already gone through and to what Mr. Horne was saying, that the divisions and departments have vetted this. And I do believe that Council Member Plowman has properly, she's gone through this and vetted it. And I do think that this is part of our ability to allow something to go through that's in another Council District when that Council Member is bringing it forward saying that this is what my community is asking for. So I support this and I hope that our colleagues will too. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Mayor. It was my understanding that this has not been vetted, as I understood Mr. Horne explain it. Is that correct? That it's not gone through the administrative process? Well, Commissioner Albright's department sent it through the departments and divisions. Now, if you read the memo that as each department responded, my reading of it is not all the departments and divisions thought this was a good idea. I will leave that if Commissioner Albright wants to respond to that or you can read it yourself. This is not a memo that's overwhelmingly in support of this barricade. So the first step arguably has been done. From there, you would typically get this referred to you according to the process by the CAO after she receives that. It looks like that's the point at which this process stopped, which is why there's a request that it be waived. Thank you. I don't want you to eat up all my time. Thank you for that explanation. This has not gone through the process. I appreciate the fact that some might have decisions about it. I've intentionally not read the emails from the individual asking for this because I was presuming it would go through a process and I would get an official position from this government about what to do. Some of you all may know exactly where it is. You went and looked at it and all that, but I intentionally did not do that because I was relying on this process. To completely skip over it, I don't think we need to start that when we're talking about road closures, especially when we've got a planning division that talks about connectivity. We're talking it out of both sides of our mouths here. I would not be in favor of this motion. Just from what we've heard today, there is some discussion that I think needs to be had and I certainly don't feel comfortable about it, not knowing the full explanation of it. Just where the information that some of my council members have shared, I'm not comfortable with just letting it go through. I would not be in favor of this motion. I think it needs to go through a process that has been vetted that we get official positions from our department's divisions and then come to a decision as a whole based on all of the information that's gathered. Thank you. Vice-Mayor Kaye? Thank you, Mayor. I just want to clarify, if I can. A couple of people from the neighborhood met with me also and I saw the details of the way in which they think about it and what they would like this body to do. It seems to me that it is different from some of the other proposals that we've had for closing streets and at the end of the day, I might be in favor of closing that street. What's at issue right now is not whether we close the street or not, what's at issue is whether we follow our process and take due diligence and take the time to do that before we make a decision. I don't see any reason why this should be rushed. There's no immediate threat that anything's going to happen out there. There's time to do this. I believe we need to hear from our professionals in the government and then we need to have a full discussion and allow the community as a whole, not just that neighborhood, to weigh in on this. That's what the question is. Do we suspend our usual rules and try to make a decision now or do we go through our usual process? And I hope that we turn this down. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the motion? All right. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye and log in to your electronic voting. And all the no's. All right. It looks like this motion fails. Seven nays, six yays, and one absent. Two absent. Two absent. All right. Thank you for that. Council Member Lamb, did you have a walk on? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I actually have three. You have three. Okay. I landed the jackpot today, so. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd Council meeting a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute an agreement with Kentucky Humanities Council, Incorporated, for $200 for the office of the Urban County Council at a cost not to exceed the sum stated. I better do it one at a time. Okay. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger seconds that. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That passes. All right. And the second one is, is I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd 2019 Council meeting a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute a First Amendment to the Purchase of Services Agreement with the Lexington Children's Museum, Incorporated, doing business as Explorium of Lexington, increasing the government's FY 2020 funding by $41,500. So move. Second. Council Member Lutz seconds. Thank you. All those, is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Well, there were two ayes. Are there any other ayes before we go on? Okay. All those opposed? That motion passes. And lastly, but not leastly, I move to place on the docket for the Tuesday, December 3rd Council meeting under first reading resolutions, a resolution authorizing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute change order number one of the Consultant Services Agreement with EOP Architects for the design services of the Government Center building elevator evaluation, increasing the amount by the sum of $14,452.28. I so move. Second. Council Member Farmer seconds. Is there any discussion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to make a motion if it's appropriate to reconsider the vote on Ivory Bridge. I think I was on the prevailing side. The reason being is the intent is to make a motion to postpone it until Council Member Plowman is present to maybe speak on the issue since it impacts our district. So move. Second. Council Member Fred Brown seconds. I'm on the prevailing side. Are you? Okay. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? You seconded. Okay. Is there any discussion? Vice Mayor Kaye. Yeah, I'm just not clear. Are you suggesting reconsideration and you're going to move to postpone the decision until Council Member Plowman can be here or are you simply asking for a revote? My intent was that to reconsider to revote. Is that appropriate? Thank you. So if this passes, this would bring this item back up for another vote just so everybody understands what we're doing. I think right now. Yes, ma'am. It would come right back up if this motion to reconsider passes. Is that your? Yes, ma'am. Yeah. Other questions about the motion or comments? We've got to do it first. This is the motion to reconsider the previous item, which is in order. Is there any discussion about reconsidering? Council Member Farmer. The reason stated was to reconsider this so that Council Member Plowman can vote on it. If we pass this and it comes up for an immediate vote, she's still not here, I guess is my thought. If the procedural point is correct that the reconsideration brings it up again for another vote, she is still not present for the vote today. She will not be. No, ma'am. Vice Mayor. I think I understand the intention. And so perhaps I would like, well, I was going to make an amendment, but I can't. I'll wait until the vote on the reconsideration. All right. Is there any other comment about this particular motion to reconsider? Council Member McKern. Thank you, Mayor. So to be clear on this, is this going to be read out without her here on Thursday? This motion, well, it depends on what happens next. If this motion to reconsider passes, it would be read out on Thursday and she still would not be here, correct? Unless it gets amended. We'd have to vote on it. I mean, there are lots of possibilities. I mean, we don't know what will happen, right? There might be a motion. There are lots of possibilities. Okay, so if we reconsider, then we can go ahead and amend it again. But if it's shot down, it goes through the same process of where we're at right now. That's right. Okay, thank you. Yes. Other comments on the motion to reconsider? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? No. Oh, let's take an electronic vote, please. All right. That motion passes 9-4 with two absences. Now, we have the issue back to be reconsidered. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. If I understand the intention of the reconsideration correctly, I would like to make a motion to amend the present motion to postpone the vote until Councilmember Plowman can be present. So move. All right. We have a second by Councilmember James Brown. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Councilmember Farmer. I was going to make a different motion. I was going to make a motion. I'm sorry. I'm speaking to the Vice Mayor. I'm sorry. Pardon me, Mayor. I was going to make a motion to refer it to committee. This is fine with what you're doing. I mean, because she does have representation in this, I believe, either way. But it would require her to be here. All right. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. Is there any discussion about the amendment? Any other discussion? I have a discussion. Councilmember Maloney. My question to you is, will this go on tonight? Let's just say what I'm trying to do. If we put it on for Thursday and then wait until January before she comes back, before we vote on it, is that what you're asking for? Are you waiting until January when she comes back? Let's let the Vice Mayor clarify his motion to amend. I think I was reflecting another person's interest. Whatever. I think what it means functionally is that because she will not be here this week, it would be after the break before we could have a vote on this motion. Any other discussion? Comments? I'm sorry. Councilmember Evans. There we go. We're still going to have the same procedure concerns that I have. I still have the same question the Vice Mayor had with I don't understand what the rush is, taking it through the regular process. If the street is that remote, then it is what it is, and I don't understand what would drastically change with allowing it to go through the process that just about every other street that I know of has gone through. And I appreciate wanting to wait for Councilmember Pullman to be able to be back, but, again, she's still not going to be able to provide the information and the professional opinion that I would want from our staff. And this is, again, circumventing the process that we've had for I don't know how long, that there's no emergency that has been indicated that this needs to happen right now. So I understand that there are people that are passionate about it, but when we start operating in this manner and not going through the process and the proper procedure, then we're setting ourselves up for every neighborhood, every agency, every industry to behave the same way. And we are trying to get out of that behavior and response. So I just truly ask my colleagues to consider just remaining true to the process that we have in place. There's no danger, to my understanding, to anyone in this area, and it can go through the regular channels as any other street closure. Thank you. You're welcome. So the amendment on the floor is to postpone until Councilmember Pullman is back. Councilmember Gibbs, did you want to speak to the amendment? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. I just want to say that I support the amendment. I'd like to give Councilmember Pullman a chance to explain why she's walking it on. There may be some very good reasons. I have looked at it pretty closely. It looks like a pretty good plan to me, but I do like process as well, so I'm a little bit torn. But I'd like to hear Councilmember Pullman. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, ma'am. I just have a technical question, I guess, for law. Do we not have to have a date specific, or can we be that generic and say when she returns? Because I want to be here for the vote, and I don't know when she's going to be here or if I might not be here. So usually we are specific on how we. I think it's okay to say postpone until Councilmember Pullman returns, because that will turn into a date certain. Certainly it's cleaner and more regular that you would pick a date for it to return, but I think technically you can do it the way the vice mayor did. Are you okay with it? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions about the amendment? Councilmember McKern. Thank you, Mayor. Even if it's a walk-on with suspending the rules in January when she comes back, would there be ample time to have everyone come and still speak to us at that work session? I mean, if we had planning here or if we had – I mean, I guess I'll look at Kathy's aid. We have a speedy Doug Burton coming. And that's okay. I'm just saying. We were looking for you. She will be back on the first council meeting in the work session. Okay. For sure. In January. She'll be recovered by next week, so just with unfortunate timing. Thank you. Thanks, Eve. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Lamb. I will add one more piece of information in which I did not have an opportunity to do any homework on this because I didn't think about it. But I think there is a merit in looking to see if this process to, as some might say, circumvent the normal process. Perhaps it has been done this way before, and so that might give some – I don't know the word – some people's understanding that this is not the first time that this process could have been circumvented. And I don't know the answer to that. I'm just stating that, that that is something that we can check into and look at to see if there have been other circumstances, extenuating circumstances, where this process has been circumvented in the past, because I would bet that it probably has been circumvented. So just two cents. Thank you. Are there other comments about the motion to amend? Councilmember Bledsoe. I can't believe I'm going to speak on this, but I just feel it worth mentioning, when Agape was closed, it was not a small process. And it went through a very lengthy review, a contentious review, and it was given multiple hearings in the process simply because when you close a road, it is – you close a road. And it does have long-term – so I am sympathetic and I am supportive in many ways. I would just caution us to move that more quickly, even when extenuating circumstances may exist, because of the unforeseen. So I'll support the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments before we vote? All right. All those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? The motion passes. Now, the motion on the floor is to wait until Councilmember Plowman is here to put it on the docket. That is the motion. Is there discussion? I see none. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Did I hear a – okay. We have one nay. All right. Councilmember Evans. Thank you all very much. I think we're still in walk-ons. Are there any more walk-ons? Or are we finished? All right. We – okay. All right. I believe we've completed our docket approval, and we have a motion to approve as amended. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. All right. Next up is the summaries of November 19th work session and November 12th work session. Second. Councilmember Farmer moves approval. Councilmember Ellinger, second. Is there discussion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next up is budget amendments. May I have a motion, please? Second. Councilmember Farmer moves approval. Councilmember Massotti, second. Please log in if you have questions. I see none. We are on budget amendments. That's okay. There's a lot going on up here. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I move to amend the list – excuse me. I move to amend the list of budget amendments on page 7 of the work session packet to add budget amendments so that they may receive two readings before the end of the year. These budgets will – and I have a small list. One, recognize a donation to family services, $400. Two, establish bond budget for government center fire escape project, $260,000. Three, provide CDBG funds for Charles Young Center gymnasium project, $4,941. Four, establish grant budget for Kentucky American Water fire grant, $500. Five, reallocate funds for remedial measures projects for water quality, $48,792.34. And finally, six, provide funds for opioid addiction and recovery work group and collective impact program by recognizing revenues for this purpose, $45,000. So moved. Council Member Farmer seconds that. Are there questions? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Is there any other question or comment about budget amendments? All right, there's a motion to approve as amended budget amendments. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. All right, next we have new business. Council Member Farmer moves approval. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Please log in if you have questions about new business. Council Member Farmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. My first one is on item F, which is on page 18, which is about Jacobson Park roadway widening, and I'm just wondering about any specifics related to that. It looks like an interesting project. Pat Duggar. Pat Duggar. This is funded by a grant, the chemical stockpile grant out there. That's because that's where we have our shelter and our reception site. Okay. And so we're trying to widen the causeway road so that both an EMS unit and a car, two-way traffic there. Wouldn't make it happen. Very long road then? No, it's only about 300 feet, thereabouts, just across the causeway. I was interested for the detail. Thank you very much. Then secondly on item S on page 35, this is one of a group of four that do the different watersheds, and I was just asking for a little bit of background on this because I think it's really great work that's going to go on here in a continuing fashion. But, Director, if you just want to comment on all four of them, not necessarily just the one. Treating them as all four. In the past, we've had a pre-qualified list where we awarded individual projects to engineering firms as we were doing the pipeline projects. That's proven to be very cumbersome. It's undermined some of our completion deadlines. And so we elected this year to go back to basically a model we used in 2000, where we have one engineering firm that is responsible for the entire watershed. I feel like we'll be able to accelerate the schedule of projects and also have a better outcome. I'll use an example in Council Member Fred Brown's district. The next leg with the West Hickman goes in one direction towards Tates Creek Road, and the other one goes on up Green Tree towards New Circle. Having two engineering firms trying to work on that makes no sense. You'd have one firm basically collaborating and designing a project that works and goes together. Everything would just be smoother and more hand-in-glove. Very much so, yes. I appreciate that work in all those watersheds. Thank you. And then lastly, item T on page 37. Just what do we get out of the reorganization of these positions in the Division of Water Quality? Just for some specificity, I mean, whatever. The project engineering coordinator positions were created as part of the consent decree. They're non-civil service positions. And what we found in this economy, we just can't find anybody that's qualified to fill these positions. So Human Resources Director Maxwell suggested that we try in this type of position, the construction supervisor, that it will broaden our pool to be able to get people who are capable to come in and help us with these construction projects. And I've got one candidate in mind already, so I think it's going to give us more of the resources that we need internally to be able to finish these projects. Great thought process. Hopefully great outcomes. Thank you on all that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. My first item is item J. It's on the Wilson Downing sidewalk. I had asked Mr. Burton if he wouldn't mind to come up and just give a little bit more information about this project. It's a really exciting project. So this is the supplement agreement for the right-of-way phase, and we'll start that this spring or really after the first of the year. It's a fairly small right-of-way acquisition process, so it should go relatively quickly. Then we'll move on to the utility phase and then go to construction. Our goal is to get that to construction probably in the fall of next year, with completion being likely the next fall. It should be a one-year project or maybe a little bit less, but that's going to be our general goal is to get that project out to construction next fall. Okay. Then we'll really have connectivity from Tate's Creek to Nicholasville Road, which is nowhere near right now. Right. There is one section on Wilson Downing that there is EPA quality or consent degree projects that are going on, which I'm sure you're aware of that. But I'm hoping that we'll – I'm sure that we'll work around that so that we – We're coordinating with them, and then we'll make sure our timelines line up to where no one's stepping on anyone's toes or we don't have to build something that they rip out. Well, I appreciate it, and I know this is going to be a great project, and it's going to add a lot of connectivity and safety walking for the neighborhoods over there. Thank you so much, Mr. Burton. Absolutely. The other question I have is item Z. It has to do with the lease agreement. I don't know if Ms. Conrad or Mr. Berardin. I know that there is a process in place that we have talked about back and forth and back and forth about leases, and I'm more curious as to why that – how did this land on the work session agenda where we didn't follow through the other process? Is there a reason for that? That's correct. That process only applies if the potential tenants ask for any kind of consideration in a lease amount and they use the form General Services 101. This one, they're paying fully at market rate. Are we upfitting any of this space? No. No? No, it's a current space on the fourth floor. The area is not that large, and they're only using partial areas, so it's just prorated based on the square footage that they're using. Okay. And is there any parking or any other amenities? Parking, everything's noted in their lease agreement, and they're fully responsible for their own parking. We don't provide any. Okay. All right. I appreciate that information. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Director Martin, I believe it's item Y. Just a little bit more comment on that penalties that we have to pay. Is that under the consent decree? It is under the consent decree. I didn't know we had to pay state penalties. They always split this 50-50. Basically, the consent decree allows for them to assign stipulated penalties of $2,000 for each overflow event that is not related to a capital project. Somebody had asked me this earlier this week that, you know, EPA has always had the ability to fine you, and it's built into the Clean Water Act. And so when we settled the consent decree, they recognized that there's the likelihood that overflows will continue, so they put basically a penalty in, and it will stay there for as long as the consent decree is in effect. So we're going to have this, and we still got those overflows. Will they all be taken care of by the time we get all of our sanitary sewer and stormwater? There's two different kinds of overflows, and this one is related to ones that happen during dry weather. So it's because of grease or tree roots or somebody drilled a hole in the pipe type of thing. You know, we work really hard and spend a lot of time trying to prevent those, but will we ever get to zero? We'll get up every morning trying to, but the reality is probably not. What does the state do with this money? You'd have to ask them. I do want to say on the wet weather ones, you know, is that the consent decree does allow for them to charge us stipulated penalties for wet weather ones. Even after we get these projects done, dialing everybody back, the whole remedial measures plan is built on a certain design storm. We passed that threshold this past weekend, or we rubbed right up against it. And so they can't fine us for wet weather overflows for projects we haven't built yet. The consent decree says you can't fine until after the project is built. But if we have one after a project is put in place, then that is subject to stipulated penalties as well. Thank you. Thank you. One other item. Okay. That would probably be Commissioner Armstrong. There's authorization to enter an MOU between the Federal Bureau of Investigation. What's the detail on this? What are we all working together? Yes, sir. This is actually a very common practice. What happens is because the FBI is the primary law enforcement agency for that property, but in reality response times would be much quicker from us, so we enter into an MOU so we can address any issue that's immediately at one of those facilities, and then the FBI would come and take charge of the investigation from there. This just has to do with federal property within Fayette County then? Yes, specifically the hospitals on this instance. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. John, can you talk about item Z a little bit more? I'm really happy that CivicLux is going to be up there. I see they're just taking about 500 square feet. How much more do we have up there? Approximately 700, 720 would be remaining. And there's still nothing on the third floor, is that right? Third floor is unfinished based on the last estimate we had just to create what is called a white box. You're looking at upward of $500,000 needed. At this point, really, with all these other projects that we've got, deferred maintenance ones we just can't justify finishing the space when we don't need it. But we're actively looking for a tenant for the balance of the fourth floor? Yes. I believe there currently might be two or three other potential tenants that are interested in occupying the other areas within the fourth floor. Excellent. Thanks, John. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Other questions about new business? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now we'll move on to continuing business and presentations. And first is neighborhood development funds. Move to approve. Council Member Ellinger moves approval. Vice Mayor Kaye seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. All right. Council Member Bledsoe has the budget finance and economic development October 29th. Thank you, Mayor. The meeting was called to order at 1 o'clock on October 29th. A motion was made to approve the September 24th committee summary. Bill O'Mara, Rusty Cook, and Melissa Luker provided an update of the city's financials for the first quarter of the fiscal year. Lexington's unemployment rate in September was 3.4%. The services revenue category had one of the only positive variances for revenue, and the total revenue was down by $625,000 when comparing actual to budget. Expenses had an overall positive variance of $2.9 million, and the total change in fund balance is $2.3 million. The fund balance was placed and reported to the full council on October 29th for the initial assignments of the fiscal year 19 fund balance, which included the replacement of $750,000 to budget stabilization and the remaining fund balance to council fund 1105, as well as the endorsement of $4 million for health insurance and $11.4 million for budget stabilization services. Additional assignments of the fiscal year 19 fund balance were made at the committee of the whole on November 12th, 2019. Lastly, Wes Holbrook provided a presentation on tax and criminal funding, which focused on the declining participation from the state for projects in Lexington and the challenges that we face with the program. Committee discussion included the timing of payments made to projects, a comparison to Louisville, and the state's requirement for new jobs and new revenue to the state versus Lexington. No action was taken on this item at this time. The meeting adjourned at 2.19. I'd also like to take a time to report out a partial summary of today's meeting as well. Thank you. Thank you. I'm reporting out a partial summary for December 3rd, 2019, at the Fed Committee, which took place earlier today. I'll only include the action items taken under agenda item number three, potential budget review process changes. A motion was made by Councilmember Fred Brown to accept the amendments to the 2020 council calendar on page 21 to 23 of the December 3rd committee packet, which includes moving the mayor's budget address to April 28th and final approval of the budget taking place by June 15th, seconded by Farmer. The motion passed without dissent. On behalf of the committee, so moved. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. A motion was made by Mr. Farmer to approve the ordinance that suspends ordinance number 292-2005 for the submission of the mayor's proposed annual operating and capital improvements budgets for fiscal year 2021 and directing that these budgets be submitted to the Urban County Council by no later than April 28th, 2020. The motion was seconded by Ellinger and passed without dissent. On behalf of the committee, so moved. Councilmember Farmer seconds. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you. A motion was made by Councilmember Ellinger to approve agenda item 3B to support the proposed outline of link questions and the assignment of divisions to each link. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Kaye and passed without dissent. So moved on behalf of the committee. Vice Mayor Kaye seconds. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. A motion was made by Mr. Farmer to move forward the BFED's committee's financial report presentations occurring quarterly as outlined in the calendar on page 29 of the December 3rd packet. Seconded by Ms. Otte. The motion passed without dissent. On behalf of the committee, so moved. Councilmember Farmer seconds. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Lastly, the committee discussed a potential subcommittee to do an in-depth analysis of a pilot for division-level in-depth analysis to take place in this committee and agreed to start work in January. Councilmembers Farmer, James Brown, Angela Evans, and Vice Mayor Kaye volunteered to serve on the subcommittee. We'll make that decision in January. At the conclusion of the committee, a motion was made to report out, and that was done so today. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I'd like to just take a quick minute to commend you, Councilmember Bledsoe, and your committee as well as council. I think that this pilot that we're doing together is a great way to see whether we can have a few more budget efficiencies, and I'm really excited to work with you all on this and appreciate your support. All right. Thank you. Now, Councilmember Lamb, General Government and Social Services, October 15. Yes, thank you. And this is because of potential budget implications that we needed to have this report out before January, so I appreciated my colleagues for allowing this report out to be earlier than was anticipated. This is the General Government and Social Services Committee of October 15, 2019. This is a partial report out summary and motions. Item two, the hazardous duty and CDL supplements update. The committee item is the evaluation of pay practices at the Division of Waste Management. Ms. Melissa Luker provided the presentation reviewing the hazardous duty and the CDL positions, their respective divisions, and outlining three scenarios to increase the supplements at different rates. She concluded the presentation with the administration's recommendation to wait to make any adjustments to supplemental pay. Committee discussion included a differentiation for collective bargaining and hazardous retirement, a comparison of cost to and across the board increase in salaries, how the CDL supplement narrows the focus on waste management employees, routine review of supplements, employee compensation more broadly, and recruitment of new employees. Originally, a motion was made by Councilmember James Brown to increase the CDL supplement by a dollar and increase the hazardous supplement by 50 cents for the next budget year for non-bargaining employees, and that was seconded by Councilmember Ehlinger. After discussion, a motion to amend was made by Vice Mayor Kaye to make a dollar increase to the CDL supplement for a half year starting January 1, 2020, and delete the increase for the hazardous duty supplement. That was seconded by Councilmember Fred Brown, and the motion to amend passed without dissent. So, therefore, I am bringing out a motion to amend to make the, to increase, a motion to increase the CDL supplement by a dollar for a half year starting January 1, 2020. That was seconded by Councilmember Fred Brown. I so move. Okay. Councilmember James Brown seconded. All right. Is there any discussion? Councilmember Maloney. Thank you, Mary. I support this, but I do have concerns about the money. Where is the money coming from? We have, is Commissioner O'Mara here? Commissioner O'Mara has looked through the budget to see where we will make cuts, and I asked him to bring that today so you all will know, and he's, I think he has that. Mayor, they have sent out an email to Council to describe where that money would be taken. Has Council seen that email? So, Commissioner O'Mara, do you? Commissioner has worked very hard on this to figure out where this is coming from, and some of the Councilmembers haven't had an opportunity to see the email. It went out late this morning. Excuse me. We have favorable variances in repairs and maintenance and in professional services. So what we did was we looked at all of the divisions and sections in the general fund, the 1101 fund, looked at anybody that had a favorable variance as of year to date right now, and then took 9.25% of that variance. That would equal about $96,000, which is about what you're looking for for the six months. It's all divisions. We included Council. It's got any and all of the divisions that are in the general fund. Are there any questions for? Are there questions? Oh, go ahead. I just want to follow up. I appreciate you giving me that information. I do support it, but it's just a one-time money, so next year we're going to have to find permanent ongoing money for these CDL licenses. This is funding only from January through June. So it goes back to my point with my colleagues where I say the first thing we usually cut is maintenance, and we're sitting here talking about getting a new building. This is a prime example of what government's done for the last 40 years. The first thing they cut is maintenance. So I just want you to know, if we ever lock into anything, we're not going to have this luxury of taking money out and moving it around like this. I mean, this is very important. These folks need this money for the jobs. We're having a hard time hiring them, but I just hope everybody understands what it's coming to if we decide to lock in. We won't have this luxury anymore. Thank you. Well, and if I just might say, you will remember we've already cut operations by 15%. There were very few places left to cut. So they have found where they could cut. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I'm just getting a chance to look at this e-mail. I appreciate the work that you all do on a daily basis. You all aren't seeing these numbers. And it's a little here and there that you're really asking other people to make sacrifices for. And everyone in this government has made sacrifices already. I'm really concerned that we'd be taking money out of maintenance because of the situation we're in with this building. This is really difficult. I'm just going to be honest with you all. I appreciate the work that you all do. But you're asking for others to make a lot of cuts as well in addition to what they've already done. I don't know if a dollar raise is going to keep anybody here. My time is running out. But another point that has been brought up to me has been that, you know, quite frankly, those that would be – oh, good, I've got more time. Thank you. You know, we have a gender issue going on too. And that's something that we need to work on. You know, I understand that it's the employees that this would most impact would be male. But there are males and females working in that – in waste management that would not receive this. You know, I'm really struggling here. But those are some issues that we've got. But you don't have to be concerned about that. But that's something I have to be concerned about. You know, we talk about equity. We talk about equality. That's something that we put, you know, in our charter or in our ordinance. That's something that, you know, we claim to be very equitable and very fair. And we're trying to be. We really are. But I've got some concerns about how we're trying to make this work for you all. But the maintenance is – taking more out of maintenance is a big concern for me. I've got my head around that one right now because that's a huge concern. And, I mean, literally when we have brown water coming out of the faucets every other week, I mean, we truly have some maintenance issues that we can no longer ignore. So, yeah, those are my initial thoughts. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. So this issue is simply one of many where there are ways in which the government needs more money in order to provide the services that we think the community deserves. When we talked about taking this action, it was about two things. One, trying to do something for the people who collect our trash, who do some of the hardest jobs in our community at some of the lowest pay and try and recognize the work that they do by giving a lot of them who do the driving a supplement. It was also to recognize that we have a larger problem of finding enough people with CDL licenses and paying them adequately compared to what they can get in the private sector. We have this problem. We just had Charlie Martin here talking about finding people in his division. We have heard about other divisions that have trouble recruiting people given the pay that we offer. The mayor has appointed a committee that's looking overall at revenues, expenditures, options. That is the larger conversation that this council needs to have. And I start from a position that believes that we have not been funding adequately the government that we want. That's why we have deficits in our maintenance. That's why we have unmet needs in fleet. That's why we're having difficulty paying adequately for the people who we want to do our work for us. We can only rob Peter to pay Paul for so long. I think we have to have, and I think we will have, a serious conversation about what it really takes to provide the services that this community has come to believe it needs and that makes this the kind of community you want to live in. So I think right now what we're doing is piecemeal, but I think it's the right thing to do. Eventually we're going to have to have a reckoning. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Massotti. Thank you, Mayor. Either Ms. Luker or Commissioner O'Mara, whomever wants to come up in reference to the same item. Melissa, you sent the email, but Mr. O'Mara, you talked about how you were going to plug this gap. It's 96K, you said, through June. And this is a recurring expense. So what is our game plan for the future? Or am I? Well, that would be answered with the 2021 budget. Whenever you have increased expenses, you have to decide what other areas you would want to cut in order to pay for those increased expenses. Oh, I get that. But do we have a plan? We haven't put the 2021 budget together yet. I understand that, but this is something that we know is happening. We didn't have a plan for this, and we would have to build a plan when we build the 2021 budget. You don't have anything in mind, I guess. That would be my question. We know this is recurring. We look at salt and we can't cut salt. We looked at the rent for hydrants. We can't cut that. We looked at the large dollars, and the space isn't there to carve out this. So that's where we went to small amounts everywhere. But it does hit many divisions where they will feel the pain. Okay. I thought maybe there was something on the horizon that you were kind of hoping would come in. We haven't done the budget yet. Just asking. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. This has been an interesting conversation since this committee day that we've talked about this. And, you know, we, of course, during that committee discussion, we were wanting to do something because we're trying to do what's right. But when the, what is it, when the pavement hits the road, you've got to have where the money is going to come from. And now that we're finding out where it's going to be cut from, and, again, my concern is that it's one-time money. And we've been told over and over and over again, if we could use one-time money, I would give some of my $47,000 from that fund balance, but we can't do that. So I am having a hard time moving forward with this. But I do want to say is that I want us to be able to intentionally have these conversations, like we talked about during the next budget. We've got a lot of discussions to have about our employees in this coming budget. And they're going to be hard discussions. But we have to start having those conversations. And so while I supported this during the committee discussion, I think that now that I'm looking at where the money is going to be coming from, much like some of my colleagues have said, it's going to be cut from a lot of different areas of government, and I do have some concerns with that. But it does not mean that we don't care. These are some very difficult times we're in right now. And I am hopeful that we can have these discussions once we start the budget, FY21 discussions, that we're going to have some really hard discussions. So I just wanted to say that my heartfelt thoughts on this right now. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. I am not on the General Services Committee, so I listened to a lot of the debate, but I wasn't part of the vote. And it's my understanding, what it seems like to me, is that the committee voted almost in isolation to do this, and the administration took some time to figure out how they could fund the council's decision. And this is that response. And they are not small numbers. Yes, there's $18 here, but there's $4,000, $6,000, $10,000, $20,000 in some of these categories that are rather substantial. And they are in areas that we've talked about investing in. So I share Council Member Lamb's concerns about doing it. That being said, I fought very hard in the last couple of meetings about CDL drivers and what we need to do to recruit, to equip, to retain. And I stand by that same commitment of doing that. And I think we've worked pretty hard on trying to figure out how to do that, not just in this division but in several divisions. And I guess I'm torn in the same way in that respect. I really want to do this, and I really want to do it not for six months. I'd like to do it full time for everyone in these areas. I mean, my concern is doing it for six months and not finding that money again. And then what do we do? When we have to go back to some of these divisions a second time and continue to cut where we don't really have cuts available. And that makes me really nervous moving forward. So I'm torn. And I appreciate the work the administration has done to try to figure out how to do that. I want to say that. And I appreciate your service a ton. I'd like to do both, if we can do that. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And, you know, I think we've had a pretty robust conversation about this in committee. And I think we got to the point where we talked about looking at hazardous, we talked about looking at CDL and what the amount of increase should be. And I think we got to this point because, to the Vice Mayor's point, it's a workforce retention issue and recruitment issue. And the fact that we need to do something and do it as soon as possible, I think, pushed us to this point. What I think could be a way that we can make this happen and it be more palatable to the council is and give the administration more time to find where the money is coming from in next budget year starting July 1st, as opposed to doing it in January. Because I kind of feel like we're victimizing the folks that are advocating for the pay increase when we're saying that in order to do it, we have to take it from Peter to pay Paul, when they were just advocating for the job that they do and what is required of them to do it. So I think we all understand that. And I think if we shift that increase to July 1st, as opposed to January 1st, I think that will give the administration, and I'm asking, an opportunity to find the funds needed to make this happen. In addition, we can look for opportunities to give raises or pay increases to some of our other city employees. Does anybody want to weigh in on that? Because I think putting it back in committee, I think we're going to end up at the same point that we're at now with bringing this out of committee. I'm just wondering if changing the date and giving time to allocate these funds is more palatable to these council members and doesn't create animosity between this division and that division. Yes, sir. Just as a point of review, very quickly, I think our conversations back in general government was that what the CDL increase of a dollar an hour did, it used urban service funds, and we were fine there. It was over in the general fund that we had our problem. That was the $96,000, and we had to do it across all funds because we had to have everybody that's got that CDL license. It wasn't fair. Well, we couldn't do it otherwise. But we told you at that time that we would have to take this out of operating because we did not have enough personnel money to do that, and that, of course, is the result of what you see. If we were approaching January 1st, what we would do, and, of course, it's the mayor's budget. I'm just saying what we would try to do is we would look at this as a part of that budget and see what could be and I'm certainly not standing here making promises for the mayor, but what could be accommodated in a budget or not. You would start with trying to get $96,000 into a budget for July 1st rather than trying to pen it in right now. And thank you for that answer. The only other feedback I'd ask from is from the vice mayor. I think the vice mayor made the original motion to do it in January, not to put you on the spot, but I think the intent and I think what we're trying to do will still be served if we move it to July 1st as opposed to January. Let me respond. Yes, please. Well, I would prefer not to do that. I'm not going to go back through all the reasons why. I think we have had a robust discussion about this. I think we were trying to do something as soon as possible. But my question, so we have whatever this figure is altogether, $96,000. What's coming out of the urban services fund? How much of the funding for the $1 increase comes out of the urban services fund as opposed to the general fund? I brought the presentation that we did. This page right here shows full year costs. Let me see. Okay. So half of $372,000 is coming out of urban services. Will we have the money? Yes. The other funds we've checked and we have the funding for those. It's the general fund where we had to make the cuts to be able to make it work. Okay. So for the proposal itself, we have money for what looks like three-quarters of the increase in the urban services fund. And I would like to clarify, when CAO Hamilton spoke, she said $96,000. If we were doing it for the full fiscal year next year, it would be $190,000, not $96,000, because that $96,000 is just for the last six months. Okay. Okay. Well, I'm sorry, but given that we have the funds for the larger proportion of this increase, I think it's still something we ought to do January 1. But other people may see it differently. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to say I support the current proposal, the dollar raise. I think we have to take care of our drivers. If we don't, we're going to be losing more drivers, and we simply aren't going to have enough people to pick up the garbage and other jobs. I agree with Vice Mayor Kaye. We need to take a really hard look at revenues. I know the mayor's got the ball rolling on that. But we need the revenue to take care of this issue and a whole load of other issues that we're way behind on, including maintenance for this building and other buildings. We're not a poor city. We're not in a bad economy. I just don't understand why we allow ourselves to get in this condition. Again, I think we need to take a look at revenues to do the job that this government really needs to do. We should be doing it right. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. May I speak to maybe CAO Hamilton or someone else about a question in terms of retention? So I'm in favor of this increase, and I think it's really important. And I think we're weighing a lot of things that are really important, and it's hard to decide where to take the money to pay who to do what because there's not enough to go around. But if we wait until July to start this increase, do we have a possibility of losing more employees and having even more out than we already do? That would be a very difficult question for me to answer without just guessing for you. You know, we have a retention, which we've discussed before. We have a retention issue in the government. With the amount of unemployment that we're lucky enough to have in Lexington, it is making government opportunities not as attractive as they once had been, and also our pension issues. So I think that probably retention will be an issue. I mean, all of this has incremental movement, but I do not know that this retention issue would be worse than other employees that we have in the streets and roads or various places. I couldn't honestly give you a good answer. Okay. Thank you. I think my concern is that things can worsen, and if we don't have the employees in waste management, that's going to be a big problem for our whole city. So I'm inclined to support this motion. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to echo what Council Member Blesso said, that this was if the council may force the administration to come up with this money. And I like the links. When we do the links, when we decide to make changes, we say in our links to make the changes. The council members make the recommendation to move money around like that. Looking at this list and seeing what we've done to the employees for the last year, making drastic cuts, I think there's a way we can get out of this, but I know it's not going to be very popular with some of my colleagues. But to me, we just got a surplus, and if you had to divide my $90,000, each council member puts $6,000 in their surplus into this. Because to me, I look at these programs that we're cutting, they've already been cut drastically. And I don't know if my colleagues support this, but to me, if we're going to start telling the administration to make money cuts, and we're taking money from surplus that these people saved money for us, and now we're going to force them to cut more, I think maybe we ought to send a message back that this council wants to do something. We're going to give you some money back, and we're going to help the administration. And by doing that, next year we're going to sit down and figure out how to do it right. And if we ever do this again, come in here with an idea, a wonderful idea, we've got to help you all. That council or that group needs to come up with the money, not putting it on them. They need to come up with where the money comes from. So I know I said something that might upset some people here, but to me I think it's a way to win-win here, because I'm really concerned about this budget cutting out of here, and we just got a surplus. It seems like to me we can make a little bit of a cut and take our sacrifice ourselves and help this group, because everybody sitting here, I heard, say this is the most important job in no class, no class, guys, no. This is all. We all agree this is very important. So to me, $6,000, save these other jobs, be a good message for Christmastime for our colleagues. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mary. You beat me by one, because I was going to make that same suggestion, because if you look at the $47,000, it looks like it's about $6,500 per person. If we take that money, we give it in there. We don't have to cut from this. And we do have to then come up for fiscal year 21, because that is going to be a reoccurring expense. But I don't think at this point we can pull the rug out. We told them we're going to do this. I think we need to do this. And I don't think we need to do it on the backs of all this. Let's do it with the surplus of the money that we have. And we can do it. That still gives you $41,000 to do what you want to do in your neighborhoods and your districts. But I think we need to come out with that. And where do we stand with the surplus right now? Could you tell us? Where is that in the process right now? The $717,000. That's the second reading tonight. That's the second reading tonight. So we can amend that and change that if we want to, correct? Yes. I believe if you amend it, you will have to have a new first reading tonight and a second reading on Thursday night. But it's still we can still do that before the new year or before we go on break. Okay. So that's what I'm going to make a motion if no one does. What's your motion? Well, that's what I want to try to figure out how it needs to be. You want to make it tonight? I think I need to make it tonight, you know, not during the council meeting. It would be good to have it in writing what it is. Exactly. First of all, before I do it, I'd like to meet with the law and have it written out and passed out to the committee and to the council. But I think that's what I'll bring up tonight. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. Well, we all seem to be thinking about some of the same things. I would agree. I'm on record as not being in favor of allocating that money to every council member to begin with, and I think giving some of them back would be terrific. So if we can, I'm trying to think procedurally what we need to do here. I don't want to eliminate the possibility of having this raise go through January 1. The raise would need to happen starting January 6 because that's the first full pay period of the calendar year. But in order for us to reallocate funds out of the fund balance, that would have to happen tonight. And is there a way, I guess what I'm looking at procedurally, right now we have a motion, I believe, on the floor, which would be to put this issue on the docket. I think the appropriate way to proceed, if my colleagues agree, is to put it on the docket and take action tonight to reallocate money from the fund balance and then take this piece off the docket. Does that make sense? I'm happy to take any guidance. If someone has an idea about procedurally what motion we need at what point. Can we not just amend that number and then reallocate it, make a motion to reallocate? My question is what do we have to do now in terms of the vote? Do we have to put it on the docket or do we have to? There are two different issues. This motion is totally separate from what will come on the docket, which is about the fund balance. That's a separate item. This is about the CDL dollar. But that's also headed for our docket tonight. Yes. And that's what we're voting on right now. Is this motion to put the CDL raise on the docket? Could Law give us some advice as to how to do this legally? It seems like people might want to hear from you. If I'm understanding what's occurring, you would put this on the docket tonight, and then you're going to potentially make an amendment to the surplus fund. If that passes, this would be on line to get second reading on Thursday, as would the amended use of the surplus fund. And so we would, if we were so inclined, we would vote up on the amendment to the fund balance. We would vote down on this or delete it. Yes. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner O'Mara, did you want to say something? I'm getting into the details, but if we just amend the total that is being voted on tonight for the allocation to each individual council member of my 96,000, then we can then reallocate the total of one-fifteenth to each person. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Okay. I appreciate the effort, and I think when we were first talking about fund balance, I wanted to remind my council members that what we had as a balance was really not a balance because we did make cuts to come up with that balance. So my initial proposal was to put whatever we had left back into the general fund. So I feel like we're back on that track, so I'm glad to hear that. So I guess my question would be, we'll have to make the motion tonight, we would be making without allocating, because what we've got right now is the 9% variance from professional services with that. I'm wondering what the first motion would be versus the second. Well, the motion on the floor here right now is to approve to go to the dock at the CDL dollar. But are we approving it with this funding? Because it sounds like we're about to change it. If I could clarify, the e-mail that went out said that was a proposal. There is not a budget amendment created for that worksheet. Thank you. Okay. That's what I wanted to know. Thank you. Thank you. There you go. Thank you. All right. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I'm supportive of the raises, doing it as soon as possible. But we've all taken budget cuts this year, every department, every division. It may be a public misperception that council got a boatload of money that they divvied up amongst ourselves. It's $47,000 per district that I've already committed to capital projects in my district. So in order to pull just $6,000 out of it, I would have to tell somebody I've already told yes to know that this can't happen. But whatever council votes on and decides is, I guess, what we have to do. I would make a suggestion that the largest that don't have districts and capital projects commit. I heard it. Okay. You have four minutes left. Did you want to say anything else? Yeah. No, I just. Okay. Yeah. The Vice Mayor wants to respond. Well, we've got two more people who want to speak to the motion. And I think that was the comment. It was a comment that may lead to a motion. Yes. Depending on what the Vice Mayor's response may be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. I just want to echo Council Member Brown's thoughts. One, I, too, have already $40,000 is not a ton of money. And so it doesn't go very far in our districts. And I, too, am wondering, okay, I'd love to do this. So who will I tell no to make it happen? And I was just going to encourage at largest to see if they could help do that because, one, it's a very important service. And I want to make sure we're doing it. I just thought that was a really good idea. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mayor. I'm with Council Member Brown and Bledsoe. In fact, I support using fund balance money for this if possible. But I've already promised people $47,000 for, I think, five or six different projects. It would put me in a very uncomfortable position. So if the at-large folks could help us in our little districts, that would be really good. And I've got a question about procedurally for tonight. Bill? Yeah, Commissioner O'Mara. So how did you say you thought we should proceed on this, that we should be redoing the fund balance? Right. We could amend the budget amendment for the total amount being allocated to council, reduce it by $96,000. That would put the money into the general fund to cover the CDL for six months. And then that would then be divided by 15 and a new amount, approximately $41,000 or $40,500, something like that, then would be left to be divvied to each individual council member. Okay. But then we'd have a separate line in the fund balance for the $96,000 for the dollar raise, correct? Actually, I would have to check with law. But I think the $96,000 would just flow to fund balance. The rest of it would be an allocation for projects for council. Okay. I just want to make sure we're not taking money from the council allocation, because I'm not sure according to the regs that we can use that money for salaries within the government. There were some guidelines when we passed them. I think it's primarily infrastructure. You're absolutely right. Best practice is not to use it for recurring expenses. Yeah, so that's why I'd just like to deduct the $96,000 from the, what was it, $675,000, if I remember the number correctly, and have a separate line item in the fund balance for the dollar raise. So is that the plan? I'll have to get with law as to exactly how we do it. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I've committed close to $5,000 of my money, and I would yield the balance in $6,000 increments to any council member who has already fully committed their funds, up to whatever that means. So if you have fully committed your funds and you would have to go out and say no to somebody now that you already said yes to, I will take that money out of my allocation and use it for your allocation. Council Member Lamb, don't you love the creativity going on here? I do, but I'm going to state that I'm really confused right now. Do we have an amendment on the floor right now? We have a motion. We just have the motion that I have reported out. All right. I would like to have a friendly amendment to my motion to have this motion contingent, moving forward, contingent upon the vote on the fund balance at tonight's council meeting. The reallocation. The reallocation that is on for first reading on the council meeting docket. That's my friendly amendment so that we can have the discussion that we need to have in order to properly move forward with this motion that's on the floor correctly. Does that make sense? Do I hear a second? Yes. Vice Mayor Kaye seconds. So if I understand, the amendment on the floor is that the motion itself will go forward contingent upon having funding from reallocation of fund balance. Is that correct? All right. Is there any discussion? Please log in. Council Member Gibbs. I'm just curious how that's going to look on the docket. Will there be an asterisk next to it? I think that this is the real sausage making going on. And I think law will have to tell us what that would look like. They're actually leaving, right? Keith. I think as a practical matter, you can always take this off the docket if the funding plan you have in place does not also occur. At any point, if you give it first reading tonight, you could still remove it or vote it down on Thursday. So as a practical matter, it's kind of contingent anyway. But you can phrase it that way. It's going to show up on the docket. Your intent may be that this not be do you mean not to give it first reading until after the amendment to the ordinance. And, again, that should occur prior to the reading of the resolution. Is this an ordinance? Do you know the amendment? Yes. This is amending an ordinance. So it should, in the natural course of things, occur the way that you're wanting it to occur. Does that answer your question? It does. I would still like the motion to be couched in that proper way just so that we understand that we're going to move it forward, but we are going to have the fund allocation. I should write this down. Reallocation. Reallocation discussion first. And that way we know where the money could potentially come from. Is there other discussion of the amendment? Council Member Evans. I feel like that's making it more complicated than it needs to be. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I think we're all operating on good faith, and I think these gentlemen have been here, and we need to let them know we're either going to do it or we're not. We've come up with a way to do it that we all feel a little more comfortable about. So I just think we need to proceed knowing that we'll figure this out. It's going to come from our funds. I mean, I think that will make me feel much better and let me sleep at night, much better than the proposal that was presented before. I mean, I think we need to truly operate in good faith. They've been diligent about coming, about expressing their need, their concern. I still think we have bigger issues and bigger conversations to have, not bigger issues. But, I mean, I don't think it's fair to them to make a motion that is conditional. I mean, I think at this point we need to say yes or no and just let them know that the money is coming. The time might be different, but I just don't think it's fair at this point. This has been something we have been talking about. They've been diligent about being here. I think we just need to resolve this, and I think we have a resolution. The rest, I think, might be just minor details, whether it's an extra thousand from an at-large or whatever. I think we've actually solved the money situation. So those are just my thoughts on it. Other comments on the amendment that's on the floor? All right. Let's take a vote. All those in favor of the amendment to link this CDL dollar with the reallocation of fund balance money, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? We have one no vote. Council Member Farmer. All right. That motion passes. Two. Council Member Gibbs. Excuse me. So that motion passed. So now the motion on the floor is to move forward with your committee's motion with the funding coming from the reallocation of fund balance money. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. I believe we have that passed. All right. Does that conclude your report? Okay. All right. Very good. Next, we have council reports. Council Member Gibbs. My report is to remind council that we've got another council meeting in 17 minutes, and if you have anything to say, there's also an opportunity to say it at announcements at the council meeting. Very good. Thank you. Very good. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Mayor. This has to do with reallocation of fund balance, so I want to get through this rather quickly. Council Member Brown and I met this morning with the corrections staff and discussed the $40,000 that we – I'm sorry, James Brown – and discussed with the division of community corrections the $40,000 that we had said we were going to wait until after we had the January 21st planning and public safety meeting. Based upon their input, I'd like to make a motion that we take the $40,000 out of the, I guess, the fund balance that we're going to reallocate tonight and move forward on that. So moved. Second. All right. There's a motion and a second by Council Member James Brown regarding the money for the jail assessment and – Advertising, jail assessment, and I think it was recruiting. Is there any discussion? And your motion is to allocate it toward that. Yes, ma'am, and have it on the documents. Any discussion? Okay. Council Member Evans. Was it specifically on recruiting and marketing? Because there was a question that – Recruiting, marketing, and there's going to be an assessment done. So it's a total, I think, of about $40,000 from what I understand. Partial – And it is not involving billboards. I just wanted to make that clear. Right, and that's fine, but I guess the question was, you know, what was the majority of that money going to? The assessment. The assessment. And there's not another consultant. It's more of an assessment of everything that has been throughout the years has been already, you know, been disseminated. Okay. All right. So we just think that moving it forward quickly instead of after the January 21st meeting is the appropriate thing to do. Okay. Is there other discussion of the motion? I see none. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is there any opposed? All right. That motion passes. Yes, ma'am, and this is on behalf of Councilmember Plowman, who's not here, a reminder about the Get on the Board application, which closes on December 20th, relaunched by Councilmember Plowman and an advisory board. The Get on the Board program seeks to elevate and make heard unrepresented voices at board tables throughout the community. During the eight-week session, participants will be trained by area professionals that are versed in board-related disciplines, such as parliamentary procedure, board financials, fundraising, ethics, and more. Upon completion of the eight-week session, participants will graduate and be matched with a board of their choice. The board training program is free to all who participate. You can get an application online at planetary.org, slash getonboard or contact Councilmember Plowman's aide, Eve Wallingford, for the details. So moved. I'm sorry. I try to go quickly. All right. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have a council report? All right. Let's move to there is a mayor's report. If I could have a motion. Oh, I apologize, Madam CAO. I so apologize for not catching. I just wanted to make clear that the jail study, the 40,000, we don't have to take that from the top. Remember, we have already allocated that. With the 1105 fund that we had out. You're right. We don't have to reallocate it. We don't have to reallocate that. That's what I was wondering. I'm not sure about that motion because I think the motion, if I had just asked, what did the motion state? The motion was to remove 40,000 from the fund balance reallocation tonight and allocate it to the jail to move forward with the jail assessment, recruiting, and marketing. And it's already been put on hold out of the fund balance. It's already taken out of that fund balance is what I'm trying to say. We don't have to reduce that 700 and something by 40. No, we just have to spend it. You know I'm never quite accurate on this. So the $40,000 for the corrections, that was part of a BA that is now getting, we're working on a motion right now, transferred over to the 1105 fund so it can be spent. What we were going to do is transfer it over there and then encumber it so it couldn't be spent, but we just won't encumber it now. So what is the motion needed then? Just to allocate. Just to allocate the 40. You don't need one? Pull it out of the 1105 fund. I don't think we will need one, Mayor. We're just, it will move over and we won't. We had a motion saying we had to wait, if you remember, until January 21st. We just need to take that. I think we don't need this motion. The motion tonight that they are getting prepared is to set the $40,000 aside to spend it after your Planning and Public Safety Committee meeting. So we would amend that motion that has not even been made yet to take out the put it aside until that meeting. So it would be moved to spend it now. So we wouldn't need this motion. You can withdraw it or we can. So I need to amend the motion that was made to put it. I think we can just withdraw the motion you just made. Gotcha. Do you want to do that? Yes, ma'am. Let's do it officially. All right. I move to withdraw the motion to reallocate the $40,000 from the 1105 fund. So moved. I'm sorry. Who seconded? Council Member James Brown. Any more discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All right. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. All right. Now, we will go to the Mayor's Report. Could I have a motion, please? So moved. Second. Vice Mayor Kaye moves. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Now, is there any public comment for issues not on the agenda? Is anyone signed up? Yes. Hang on. Thank you very much. All right. We have two members of the public who would like to speak, and the procedure is that you'll come to the podium, state your name and address for the record, and then you will have three minutes to speak. And first is Javier Perez. How you doing? My name is Javier Perez. My address is 1096 Brickhouse Lane. I'm seeing, I know the city got budgets and working every year with different budgets and everything, but I'm thinking every time, we got one year in that. We got one year fighting that. We're fighting because we're working for this city. Nobody giving us, nobody giving nothing to us. We have to work hard for every morning, wake up 2.30 in the morning to get this city clean. The last month, the President coming here, right, and what he said about our city. The President of the United States coming to this city, what he said about this city. The first thing he said, wow, this city is clean. Who cleaning it? Us. I'm seeing the major, I see Mr. Brown, I see a couple of counseling go with us in the morning. I'm invite you, you go with us one day in the morning, and then you do one of those routes, and then you understand what is us, y'all. And then after, after do the routes, you'll see we're still working after that. We have to clean truck, we have to clean the truck behind the truck, and nobody want to do that. Nobody want to do that. I mean, it's not because we don't go to school, because we got to school, we got to college. But I like my job. I love my job. I wake up every day, because I love what I do. If you go check us department, we got one out of band on 30 drivers who make the routes, the drivers we get. We short by 30 drivers. And now if you go to, for example, if you go to Polo Club, how many houses building right now? It's bigger and bigger every day. Lexington, Kentucky is not the same small city you think we are. It's bigger and bigger every day. Okay? So it's more job for us. And then we got employees coming one day and see how strong is our job, work in two days and go home. And we have to still do the job. So when you make the decision, think a little bit of us and us family, because we do everything for this city. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Perez. Deion Henry. I'm Deion Henry, the union president. Since we've been coming down here and fighting this fight. Can you state your name and address for the record? Deion Henry, union president, 1313 Smoky Mountain Court. Thank you. You good now, Ms. Mayer? Well, we've been fighting this battle for a while. I have physically told about six or seven guys to hang in there and don't quit, because right now we are short everyday drivers. And we out there trying to do double routes to cover the routes. We got council members calling our directors and other people about streets being left down, neighborhoods being left down. But then you sit in here and don't really understand the main cause. I have stopped Javier from quitting. I tried to stop Tyler Beatty from quitting, George Gwynn. Got six more members that's planning on quitting if this doesn't go through. So how are we going to cover the routes? How are we going to get the garbage out? Now, when the citizens election come to me, I even personally had citizens election put my name on Facebook because we're leaving neighborhoods down. And it's not our fault. We out here trying to do double routes. We're starting at 330, thanks to Ms. Sally and Glenn. They're trying to work with us, trying to do our best. And we can't keep drivers as streets and roads, as sanitation. It's not just sanitation. It's streets and roads, parks, everywhere that there's a CDL driver. CDL drivers are getting $5,000 to $6,000 sign on bonuses. They're making $25 an hour, we're making $16. I mean, do y'all want to keep the streets clean like they said that Trump came here and said, which I don't really care about what he says, but I'm just saying the whole point is, is that we have got to be able to have retainers. We can't sit behind these places and act like it's comical when you've got drivers going out here doing double routes, and some of them are staying out past 10 hours. We're working Wednesdays and Saturdays, and still citizens are calling and complaining about streets left down the mist. Don't blame us, because I have helped. I made him stay, and he had his sign on bonus, and I got six other drivers that I got staying. To your point, we done heard about five women. So out of 60 drivers, we're almost at 10 of them women. So we are in a big push for women. So our department is earning them. But to the other point is that it's not only that. The garage, they can't keep people. The streets and roads, they can't keep people. So y'all got to understand CDLs now are expensive to pay. We pay about $300 a year for us out of our own pocket to have them. Y'all not helping us with that. We actually go and pay for our CDL license. Now they done went up some more, so we're going to almost have to pay, what, $353 this year? For each one of us to keep driving for the urban county government, y'all don't give a cutback, too? When I work for other companies, they pay for our CDL license. Y'all don't pay for that. So if you want to give me an extra $1,200, help me pay that $300, and I'm still living in the projects? I mean, so we're doing our best we can. These people are hurting over here, and we're not going to be able to keep picking up these routes at the rate we're going to pay. And I'm begging these drivers to stay here. Do not quit on me. Give me a shot. That's why we come and pour our hearts out, and I appreciate what a lot of y'all are doing to come over here. Ms. Sally, she rode with me for a while. I know I'm past my time, ma'am, but it's really hurtful when you sit here and I'm begging people to stay because I love my job. I don't want them to quit. I don't want to leave the streets down. You know, every morning we're sending out HEPA routes because we've got 10 to 15 routes down. And we're still trying to do our best, and y'all are still calling in on us, and citizens are calling in on us. So I just want y'all to really see that when y'all talk about this little dollar that's going to help us pay CDL license at $353, it's $1,200 a year, basically, for each one of us to help on something. I appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Henry. Councilmembers, how about it's three minutes until 5 and our meeting's at 5. How about we convene for our 5 o'clock at about 5 or 5 after to give you a little quick break? Does that work? 5-10? 5-10. All right. Okay. Could I have a motion to adjourn? Thank you. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned.