# Budget & Finance Meeting - June 24, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 24, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/530 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/530?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-06-24 - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 16,547 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. 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 Budget and Finance Committee met on June 24, 2008, at 1:00 PM with Dr. Stevens presiding as the meeting's presiding officer. The committee addressed three informational agenda items during the session, focusing on financial systems, facility planning, and fund recapture matters. The meeting included one public comment from a community member and resulted in one formal vote being taken by the committee. The committee received informational presentations on three key topics: Financial Reporting Capabilities From People Soft, which addressed the city's financial software systems; a Presentation on LFUCG Downtown Facility Master Plan, covering future development and planning for downtown government facilities; and Abatement Funds Recaptured, discussing the recovery of previously allocated tax abatement funds. All three agenda items were handled as informational matters, indicating the committee was receiving updates and briefings rather than taking action on specific proposals. The meeting provided the Budget and Finance Committee with important updates on financial systems, infrastructure planning, and revenue recovery efforts, serving primarily as an informational session to keep committee members informed on these ongoing municipal matters. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 24, 2008 meeting: • Dr. Stevens • Jim Gray • Linda Gorton • Chuck Ellinger • Jay McCord • Ed Lane • Kevin Stinnett • Andrea James • Don Blevins **Absent:** • George Myers No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions During the June 24, 2008 meeting, one motion was presented but ultimately withdrawn before a formal vote could take place. **Motion to Authorize FM Solutions Contract** Vice Mayor Gray made a motion to authorize the Department of General Services to proceed with hiring FM Solutions to draft a Request for Proposals (RFP). The motion was seconded by Council Member Lane. However, the motion was withdrawn before any vote was taken [timestamp: 02:30:00]. No formal votes were recorded during this meeting, as the single motion presented was withdrawn prior to council consideration. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed one financial item involving professional services procurement. The board considered a contract for professional services related to RFP (Request for Proposal) creation with FM Solutions in the amount of $20,000. This contract appears to be for consulting services to assist with the development of procurement documents. No specific resolution number was provided in the available documentation for this financial action. The contract type was identified as professional services, indicating this expenditure would support the organization's procurement and administrative functions. The total financial commitment discussed during this meeting was $20,000 for the single contract item with FM Solutions. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the source materials for this financial discussion.* ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one speaker addressed the meeting to express concerns about government operations. **Don Blevins, County Clerk** spoke regarding concerns about government center relocation [timestamp: 03:00:00]. Blevins expressed concerns about the lack of consultation regarding the relocation of the government center and highlighted the potential impact such a move would have on his operations as County Clerk. The speaker's comments focused specifically on procedural concerns about how decisions affecting government facilities are being made and the need for better communication with affected department heads before implementing significant operational changes. ## Contested Items The primary point of contention during this meeting centered on the LFUCG Downtown Facility Master Plan, specifically the administration's decision to proceed with Scenario 5 without comprehensive council deliberation. Council members engaged in heated discussion regarding the process by which Scenario 5 of the downtown facility master plan was selected and advanced. The disagreement focused on whether the administration had bypassed proper council oversight and input in moving forward with this particular scenario. The nature of the debate suggests council members felt excluded from the decision-making process for a significant municipal project that would impact downtown Lexington's development. However, the extracted data does not specify which council members participated in the discussion, what specific aspects of Scenario 5 were most controversial, or how the disagreement was ultimately resolved. The contention appears to have been procedural in nature, with council members questioning the administration's authority to advance the master plan scenario without full legislative body review and approval. This type of dispute typically reflects broader tensions between executive and legislative branches of local government regarding project oversight and approval processes. Without additional details from the meeting transcript, the specific outcome of this heated discussion and any resulting actions or compromises remain unclear. ## Financial Reporting Capabilities From People Soft [timestamp: 00:05:00] Commissioner Koch presented information about the financial reporting capabilities available through the People Soft system during this agenda item. The presentation focused on demonstrating the various types of reports that can be generated using the People Soft platform. During the presentation, Commissioner Koch discussed the system's ability to produce different financial reports and emphasized the importance of implementing regular monthly financial snapshots. These monthly reports would provide ongoing visibility into the organization's financial status and performance. The agenda item was informational in nature, with Commissioner Koch serving as the primary speaker to explain the reporting functionalities and capabilities that People Soft offers for financial management and oversight. This presentation appears to have been part of efforts to improve financial reporting processes and ensure regular monitoring of financial data through systematic monthly reporting mechanisms using the People Soft system. ## Presentation on LFUCG Downtown Facility Master Plan [timestamp: 01:00:00] Commissioner Cole presented the Downtown Facility Master Plan to the council, outlining the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's strategic approach to addressing facility needs in the downtown area. The presentation focused on the necessity for new structures to accommodate growing governmental operations and services. During the presentation, Commissioner Cole discussed the potential for bonding as a financing mechanism to fund the proposed facility developments. The master plan represents a comprehensive assessment of current downtown facilities and identifies gaps that need to be addressed through new construction or renovations. The presentation was informational in nature, providing council members with an overview of the planning process and the rationale behind the proposed facility improvements. Commissioner Cole outlined how the new structures would enhance the government's ability to serve residents and improve operational efficiency in the downtown core. The discussion centered on the long-term vision for LFUCG's physical infrastructure and how the proposed facilities would integrate with existing downtown development. The bonding discussion addressed the financial strategies available to implement the master plan recommendations. This agenda item served as an informational briefing, allowing council members to understand the scope and implications of the Downtown Facility Master Plan before any formal action items related to the plan would be considered in future meetings. ## Abatement Funds Recaptured [timestamp: 03:30:00] D. Jarvis presented agenda item 3 regarding the potential recapture of abatement funds during the June 24, 2008 meeting. The discussion focused on exploring opportunities to reclaim previously allocated abatement funds that could then be used to establish a revolving fund mechanism for future abatement projects. Jarvis outlined the concept of recapturing these funds as a way to create a sustainable financing structure that would allow for ongoing abatement activities without requiring new appropriations for each project. The revolving fund approach would enable the reuse of recovered monies to support additional abatement efforts as they become necessary. The presentation was informational in nature, with Jarvis explaining the mechanics and potential benefits of implementing such a system. The discussion covered how recaptured funds could provide greater flexibility in addressing future abatement needs while maintaining fiscal responsibility. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it served as an informational briefing to familiarize meeting participants with the recapture concept and revolving fund structure. The item concluded without any specific decisions or directives being issued regarding implementation of the proposed fund recapture mechanism. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): Authorize Dept of General Services to proceed with hiring FM Solutions to draft a RFP --- ## Full transcript After our painful experiences the last few months, as everyone knows, I'm sure, the Budget and Finance Committee dissolves when the mayor presents his budget to his seat chair and then all the council acts as a committee as a whole to review that budget and make whatever changes appear appropriate to the council and that will be on the docket at 3 p.m. today when the first reading of the budget is held in a special council meeting. Today our docket includes a report from about PeopleSoft, a presentation and discussion, not necessarily a presentation, but more discussion about the Downtown Facility Master Plan. And I think Mr. Jarvis is here to tell us about how he recaptured some abatement funds and there have been several questions raised about the council's adopted budget synopsis here and so we pass that around and Mr. Deaton is ready to answer any questions if there are any concerning that. But first on the docket is Commissioner Kena Coe who is going to tell us about the magic that PeopleSoft can work for us. Thanks, I'm not sure about that introduction. What I've done for today's discussion and I hope that we can use this as kind of a starting point to see what you would like to see and what kind of time frames for reporting throughout the next year, I've given you some reports that are stapled together and they're lettered ABCDE. I'll just run through these real quickly to let you know what's available in the reports that we have written right now. First of all, we started out, the first one, number A, is the budget to actual revenue report. It gives a detail of every revenue account. We have the capacity to run that by department ID if there's particular departments. One Jim and I were talking about this morning, perhaps parks, you might want to pull out separately, but any department ID in the system, we can run this report using that department ID. But it is all the detail around the revenue and it's something that we're going to be watching very, very closely as we move forward because, you know, as you know, there's some things that we just really have to hit here on the revenue side to make sure that we can make budget. The next report, report B, is the same sort of detail only on the expenditure side. And again, I mean, this one is run for fund 1101 or the general fund. We can also run this by department ID or something similar to this by department ID. The one thing you might want to note on this one is there's a column for preencumbrances and encumbrances. For budgeting purposes, we treat both preencumbrances and encumbrances as if they have already been spent. So particularly in the area of like professional services, once we enter a PO on a professional service that might be offered throughout the year, we treat the expenditure as if the whole thing is already gone. And if you can turn to report C, report C just kind of collapses those columns that I was talking about. It collapses the encumbrances and the preencumbrances and the expenditures down into one column. It's really much easier to work with, I think, than the other one. Would you permit questions as we go along? Sure. Absolutely. What's the difference between or explain to me, please, what the difference between preencumbrant and encumbrant is? Sure. Yes. Preencumbrances, between the time you enter a requisition or a request into the system prior to the actual issuance of the purchase order, and once they issue the purchase order, it goes away in preencumbrance and shows up as an encumbrance. The document has been sent out, the thing has been ordered, the person out in the community has received it. There can be a time when you've got, especially like in parks, you have six, seven, eight people working in there, and the reason we preencumbrance is so that they won't go over. So it's the difference between before it goes out the door and while it's still internal. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for A or B? Pardon the interruption. Please proceed. That's all right. No. I prefer we address these as we go along. Report D is a real high level of revenues and expenditures. I tend to work from this report a lot and then see something that looks kind of funny and then go into the detail. So D is a real high level. And what I have on Report D, and the report, I mean E, Report E does not come straight out of the system. It uses data out of the system, but right now we're dumping the data from PeopleSoft into an Excel spreadsheet to create this report because there was an indication on the part of the Budget Finance Committee earlier this year that you wanted to see the month compared to the prior year. A report directly out of the system is in queue to be developed, but hasn't been developed to this point, so we're still kind of manually doing this one. But we don't manipulate the data at all. We only are manipulating the format. So I guess some of the questions that I would have for you as we move forward, are you looking for more detail than you have gotten in the past? If so, what level of detail? Are you looking for something beyond the general fund, beyond or into the department IDs? All of those kinds of questions are on the table, and we can take a stab at any report that you think you might want to see. Okay, any response to those questions? Mr. Blevins, then Council Member Gordon, and Council Member Beard, and Council Member Lane. So we've got a lot of questions. Oh, yeah. Thank you, Dr. Stephens. Mine are pretty easy. What you have today is a great start, actually, and I'm pleased to know that they're finally coming directly out of PeopleSoft. Yes, sir. That's a huge accomplishment for us as a city. What I was looking for on a monthly basis is a dashboard, more or less, of our financial condition. I'll just call it a dashboard quick snapshot, and I like what you said about, I believe it was item D, that you start there and then you dig in. The other thing I've seen when I've served on other boards is typically the CFO will come in and annotate the reports with little, you know, stars, or ones, or As, Bs, and Cs, where you will call out to our attention, because you will have studied this a lot more than we have, and, you know, for us to review it literally in situ like we're doing right now, we're not going to see the things we ought to see. So I would expect for you to take us to the dashboard and say, okay, everything's running great except for the annotation number one. I want to point that out to you. Go to page three and I'll show you the detail behind what we're seeing. You get the idea. That's what I'm looking for. I won't speak for the entire Budget and Finance Committee, but I think that would be very helpful. What I'm trying to avoid is come November, there's a surprise where all of a sudden we've been going for four or five months, and you come in and tell us, oh, we're short in revenue by $20 million. We all go, well, how did that happen? So we don't want to do that. That's my short version. Thanks. May I respond to that before we move to the next question? I think it might be helpful. The single sheet of paper that I handed out is not a PeopleSoft report, but I started and it's not complete. I've given you the first page just to see if you might be interested in this format. This is a highlight document that we used throughout the budget process that identified some of the areas where we expected to spend money and some where we expected to save money, and I was thinking something like this might even be more helpful than a PeopleSoft report because it would give you the time frame from which we would expect to complete something and the status on a quarterly basis. In the comments section, I think Council Member Blevins might be where you were talking about annotations of there's some reason why we're off or there's some reason why we're on, and I don't mean this exclusive of financial reports, but I thought this might be a little more helpful and we can talk later about why I highlighted some of these things, but it's another format to think about. And this item E that you presented us, is that to replace the report we were getting on a monthly basis before the computer blew up? No, I would suggest actually that E would be the one that would replace what, and actually what you were getting prior to what you referred to as a blow up, which is kind of a good analogy there, was something that was being prepared by hand. It was not coming straight out of the system. It was something a little bit similar to Report E that Mr. Deaton was preparing in an Excel spreadsheet and providing to you. So that report was not coming out of the system. Right. No, but I mean, this information is similar in many respects to what's under ECHO or E. Yes, yes, and I took, I mean, actually E takes the data off of D and moves it over to E and then adds some other columns. Because traditionally we would be getting annotations on this to explain variances and peculiarities and idiosyncrasies. And we can do that. Okay. In response to your question, yes, this is good. I see this as an overarching theme kind of deal for the entire budget year, but I would also look for annotations that are on a monthly basis for some nuance that's occurred that we need to be aware of. Absolutely. So we can expect these every month, then? I think my question is, do you want all of these reports every month? That seems like a lot. Well, at least item ECHO. Pardon me? At least E. Yes. Oh, absolutely E if that's what you choose to, I mean, absolutely. I would see that as kind of a minimum. Maybe E along with this other report, one-page deal. And also I think I might ask the other council people as they respond whether they would be interested in some of the other funds. For example, I noticed that we have a rather large fund balance in the urban service fund. Yes, we do. And whether that comes up, if we just look at that one time a year, we're not going to be able to make policies that will relate to that proper. I agree. I would be delighted for you to be spending more time in some of the other funds. Right. And be happy to provide that information to you monthly. Okay, well, I'm not sure we need a monthly, but I'd be interested in what the other members of the committee think. Mr. Blevins, did you have any other comments or questions? Mrs. Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. Well, my first comment was going to be what Dr. Stevens just said. I'd really like to also see some of the urban services funds, especially now that we have some money in them. And I always liked the comments which Mr. Deaton would bring us to show why there was a certain, if a certain situation was a little bit off what it was last month. I always appreciated those comments. So I think however we can do that, I know this highlighted document I guess can do it. Or you could hand do it. We can do that with E. I have been hesitant to do that to this point because we still were lagging and not closing months when I was bringing you draft reports. Now that we're in a position that we can start closing on time, I'd be more inclined to make comments. But I was afraid of the comments when we were not where we needed to be. I understand that. And I think everything doesn't necessarily need a comment. It's just, you know, those things that might seem a little odd without explanation. And I like D and E and because I think it is good to compare to the previous year. Yes, I like that feature. And then my only other question was going to be now you've done, for instance, I'm looking at D, you've done this on June the 24th for the period ending May 31st. Is that what you're anticipating is you'll close out the previous month and then Budget and Finance will get that report at the next months? That's our hope. The schedule that we have agreed to internally for closing months is by the 10th working day of the following month. Now, we're getting revenue a little more quickly than that, but of course on the expenditure side there's a lot more to clean up. So on the 10th day we expect to have a report for the previous month, which would fall right into when Budget and Finance meets. So we would have timely reports for you. I think that's great. This is an upgrade. We hope there are many more to come. Okay, good. All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mrs. Gordon. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. I always stick my neck out and then you answer it so easily that I feel like a fool asking the question to begin with, but Schedule C. Yes, sir. I guess I don't understand. Then let's start with civil salaries of $109 million in the amended budget, $109,743 committed for May, total budget committed to date, and a remaining balance. I don't understand why a remaining balance would be that unless we're working on two different fiscal years or a calendar and a fiscal year. Actually, most of that would be because we have a hiring freeze. 150% of the... Julian, if you look down two lines below, police and fire salaries, where it's... Big negative of $48 million. The budget for police and salaries is still setting up in the $109. We haven't got it down there yet. We're still... We were trying to... We'll get that straightened out as soon as possible and rerun reports so that it looks much better, much corrector. Okay. Well, those were the two items that didn't make any sense to me. So now maybe I don't feel as dumb as I asked the question. I've just looked at them so long that I automatically put the number up there in the other one and just don't even think about it. That's fine. I understand. But that is... I didn't. Thank you. Thanks for raising the issue. Okay. Mr. Lane and Mr. Stinnett, then Jerry has a question for you also. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, I too would like to support Council Member Blevins' request for a dashboard report. I think that that would give us an opportunity to sort of see trends and maybe compare with the previous two fiscal years to see how we're doing relative to that. The other area that I have a strong interest in is trying to budget on a monthly basis as opposed to annual. And you know, there are revenues that come in. We know taxes are collected on certain dates and when you just have a lump sum number, you can't really tell if we're ahead or behind until we get to the very end of the year. But we should have the tax receipt collection information on a month-to-month basis so we'd be able to sort of accurately forecast what we should be receiving each month. And then the same is true on the expenditures, like we have snow removal in the winter. Those are monthly expenses. Grass mowing, the parks operation, swimming pools, golf courses are, I see, yeah, I see your smile over there, Kim, or two, but anyway, those could be budgeted on a monthly basis, too. And then we could just see how we're doing relative to our budget. If we don't make the exact budget we have for the month, it's not like it's a criminal offense, but it just gives you an indication of, you know, how our expenses and income are trending. That would be my request. And we have worked with metaformers and we could get to where we can do a monthly budget. We are not there yet. And part of that is because I have most of the metaformers' resources tied up on our HR implementation, and I kind of made a conscious decision that it was more important for us to implement the new payroll January 1 of 2009 than to scoot over in the budgeting stuff and then push that payroll implementation out. We're still running payroll on the mainframe, and I worry every payroll that we're going to make it. But I know, and this has been a longstanding request from you, and I promise you we'll get there. But we're just not there yet. Well, I do have sympathy because I realize you had some implementation issues, and obviously you've got to get the annual data before you can go to monthly, but I just wanted to reiterate my interest in that area. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Sennett. Thank you, Chair. I just want to go back and revisit pages D and E real quick. I know you and I had an opportunity to speak yesterday regarding this year's budget, but on page D, the amended budget column at the bottom, we're projecting a, well, I'm sorry, the FY2008 available fund balance. That's actually, we took the balance, the 2008 budget of 13-5, correct? That's what we had left over from basically 2007? That was what we budgeted. Right. And we haven't amended the budget for what was actual. Right, because I know we just got the actual here the other day. Yes. Yes. And this sheet is May 31st ending, but the sheet E is April, correct? Yes. Okay. I didn't know if that was, I wanted to make sure. Yes. I'm sorry. I just put them in there for the format, not for the numbers. Okay. So in the last month, we've amended the budget by a million bucks on the projected or amended budget for this FY08? We did not formally amend the budget for the new carry forward. Once the audit was complete, we did not make a formal adjustment. Okay. Because I see the amended on D, it's 268. Right. But on E, it's still 267, the old number. Right. So we're still looking at 268 as the correct number now? 268 would have been the number at the end of May, so yes. Okay. All right. Very good. Mr. Southers has a question. Yes. Kena, the reports A through D, are those reports that I would have the profile that I could run? Absolutely. Very good. Thank you. We just, within the last month, received the annual financial report, and I presume that we'll need to go over that. It'll be a fiscal year and a half beyond that almost, but we'll schedule that for the August Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Sure. Do you have any comments about the summary of major actions? The only thing that I was going to point out, I highlighted some things, and I was really trying to modify an existing report so that I didn't reinvent the wheel, but I highlighted some things that it wouldn't seem to me that I would need to continue to report to you about. For example, we suspended the economic contingency. Well, that happened. It's over. It's done. It's built in at the beginning of the budget, so there's not real, and that's the way I kind of feel about most of these that are, or all of these that are highlighted, and just want to make sure you agree that those are things that if we were going to do this kind of report, wouldn't need to come back to you every month. The council adopted it, assuming you adopt the budget today at 3 o'clock and first reading, and these are really things that I'm assuming you wouldn't need for me to continue to report upon, but I wanted to verify that. The transfers to the Risk Management Fund, is that the amount of reduction? That's the amount of reduction, yes, from the 08 budget. All of these are comparing 08 to 09, and they are actions that are a part of your budget. So some of these were reductions in the budget, and some were additions? Yes. For example, the increase in golf fees, you estimate will bring in the $431,000 or so extra revenue? Yes. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to mention that we're not making the 27th pay period allocation for this coming year, and I just wanted to ask you, when is our next 27th pay year coming up, and how are we going to make that money up? What's our plan for that? It's about 10 years out, 11 years out, and we would propose that in 010, assuming revenue has started to pick up a little bit again, that we go back to the annual and then start chipping away at what we didn't do here, just kind of over the next 10 years. Okay. Maybe put $80,000 a year more in each year until we get caught up. Right. All right. Thank you. Of course, in 10 years, our pay will be greatly increased over what it is now, our expense item there. Right. And I think the calculation that's done assumes the — A certain increase? A certain increase. That's right. And so it's about — what is the actual now? What does it cost us for the pay period? Right now, about $7 million. About $7 million. Okay. But it usually comes closer than 10 years, doesn't it? No, it's — Seems like we've stuck it through there. It's every 12 years, isn't it? I don't know. I think it's every 12 years, or 13 maybe even. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments about — or any questions concerning this technical handout? Okay. Thank you very much, Commissioner. The second thing on the agenda is a review of the downtown facility master plan. And Commissioner Cole will introduce the subject and then be available for questions and discussion with the council. Thank you. Good afternoon. Included in your packets, the presentation that you all heard from FM Solutions about a month ago, and just wanted to give you another copy so we could refer to it if there were questions. But just in summary, basically we hired FM Solutions to take a look at our downtown facilities before we made some capital improvements to the various buildings and the garages that were deemed necessary. And the result of this study showed that we would be better off making some changes in our facilities that would include building a couple new structures, including a new government center. And following the presentation by FM Solutions, this group decided that this was the appropriate body to have that discussion. So. Are there any questions concerning this report? Unfortunately, I didn't find the name of the company that did this. What was their name? FM Solutions. FM Solutions. FM Solutions. Oh, yeah. That wasn't the title. That was their title. And they're from Phoenix? Yes. How did you select them? We went through RFP selection process. Did you have any submissions? We had three or four. We had some council members were on the selection committee. And have they done work in other communities that is available we can review? Yes. They've done work in many other communities. And as part of their RFP submission, we did get other studies that they have done that are similar. This is the type of work that they do all the time. So you have that in their report or their submission? Yes. We do have past work that they've done. And you – is that available if I were to want to look at it? I assume purchasing keep – I'm sure purchasing would keep a file of that. Okay. Yeah. I'm curious about them because I'd like to see what their work was in other communities. Okay. Now, I had a citizen ask me today what the maintenance cost for this building is every year. I don't know that off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Is it in this report? There's a cost per square foot for maintenance. Go to the mic. Sorry. How they shared that with us was by cost per square foot. And it is in here per square foot. Can you – Yeah. It's on page – I'm having a little trouble finding it right now. Can you tell me where I can find it? Page 20. Take a look at page 20 for the annual O&M expenses for the – for the government center and the annex. I don't think page numbers are – are they? Yeah, they are. Yeah, they are. Except – So – and that's the total square foot. This bar graph tells us what the cost was adding up all the square feet. Is that right? And if you go to the previous page 19, it shows it per square foot. As I interpret this, the maintenance cost is about a million one. Is that correct? Yes, for the government center. Does that include the energy cost? Yes. Yes. If the – there's three sets of graphs coming in there. It's broken by utility costs, building maintenance costs, and custodial costs. And that's a roll-up is what you're looking at. And I presume that you would recommend if this were to be done by bonding it. Yes. If we were to go forward with this project, bonding would be required. And how are we fixed on our bonding as far as our projection? Of course, this year we're bonding the rather large contribution to the police and fire fund. Yes, we are. Yes, we are. What we did this year would put us at – will put us at about 12 percent. We're at 10 percent except for police and fire retirement. That adds another 2 percent. But that's one of the issues I think we need to have on the table when we get back together after your break and have the day-long capital planning meeting. I'll be working with Rebecca to find a date that's suitable to you all to start working on that as soon as you get back from break. In that meeting, we will consider the bonding schedule and what the future holds? Yes. Yes. Okay. Are there any further questions concerning this? Mr. Beard. Oh, sorry. Just a quick one. Are we talking about gross square feet or net square feet? Gross square feet. Okay. Because some buildings are a lot more efficient than others in the way they're laid out. Right. And this one is not laid out very well. Not very well. I understand. It was a hotel. One key point I would like to make is, you know, in talking about bonding and moving forward with this project, in absence of moving forward with this project, there would be a good number of items we would also have to bond, and that would be some significant repairs to the garages and to the buildings and to some of the main components of the buildings. And that is laid out in one of the scenarios that's the do-nothing scenario, but the do-nothing scenario still has almost a $30 million cost. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon, I think, is up next. Thank you, Dr. Stephens. Well, I know we had an opportunity to ask a lot of questions last time, and I was just curious, number one, about from here forward. Is this tied in with our discussion on the capital plan that we're intending to have after council recess? Yes. I think that we should put that on the table for that discussion. What I would like to propose to this committee is that we go ahead and have FM Solutions prepare an RFP for what the next step would be, which would be for architectural design services. They have given me an estimate for that, and if it would be the desire of this group, they could go ahead and start work on that in the meantime while you all are on break. One of my questions, it was kind of a theme throughout their scenarios, was about parking. And over the years, we've discussed how we need to get away from surface parking lots, and they have recommended in several places here surface parking lots as opposed to structures. And they also, I believe someplace in here, recommended expanding parking lots at our parks so that employees could park and ride in. And I was in a way that to me seemed to go counter to some of the things that we've talked about. Can you talk a little bit about that? I'd be glad to. The surface parking that they've recommended is out in the community. It's not in the downtown area, and that's simply for economic reasons. Now, the thoughts of putting them at parks, our large parks, we have many large events where more parking would be beneficial. So instead of putting the money into developing parking and purchasing property someplace else, if we located those at our parks, then we would have that on evenings and weekends when our parks get more use, and then we would be able to use them for employee parking during the day. So it seemed like a nice way to get better parking in our parks rather than people pulling in the grass and creating mud. So it wouldn't be expanding the parking lots at parks. It would be simply using what we have. It may be a combination of both. It would just depend on if there was expansion necessary. There are many parks where it would be desirable to have more parking. Right. Well, how can we coordinate this with the Parks Master Plan, which is going to be starting up here pretty soon? I mean, I know that's all under you, but to be sure that we're getting what we need for parks and then taking into account these recommendations. When we have our interviews, I know you'll have the opportunity as well as I to meet with the Parks Master Planning folks, that these are the type of things we can make sure are brought to their attention. And then did they give any consideration in some of these where they say to purchase shuttle buses, did they give any consideration to partnering with Lextran? I think that would be desirable for all parties. They were simply trying to give an estimate of what would be kind of a worst case if we had to go purchase the buses ourselves so that they had a good economic model for us to make decisions on. So to the extent that some of their items we may be able to partner and provide them at a lower cost, that would be great. I agree. My immediate thought was, well, we've got Lextran out there. We ought to look at a linkage with Lextran for that rather than purchase buses and get into the business of operating buses. I agree. Okay. Thanks a lot. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Gray. Commissioner Coe, I'm trying to just confirm some numbers that are in this report. I'm reading on page 19. What's the acronym or the abbreviation FMRT? Is that an average for real estate? Is that what that is? That was facility. Facilities management. Facility. Ground table. Yeah. So average. So that represents the average for costs. Benchmark. Benchmark, right. Okay. So, for example, on page 19, we're looking at our total operating costs on a square foot basis are somewhere north of $8 a square foot, so basically $8.50 compared to a national average of $4.50 for the government center. Correct. So we're almost double the round table average. And all those numbers translated into the analysis of the recommendation, rather, for scenario four, I believe. Scenario five. Five, right. Yeah, if you look at page 20, the net difference annually between the sum of our buildings and the facility manager's round table is about $668,000 a year. Right. Okay. So did they do a narrative anywhere for you? Is it like an executive summary? You have a complete report that we can get you another copy of, and it had executive summary as well as a complete narrative. This was just the PowerPoint presentation that they made. So part of this analysis then took into account the savings based on the average for the facilities management. The net, the capitalized numbers, the bonded numbers that we would need, did not. But when you look at the cash flow looking out over the number of years, it does take into account the savings. So one is the what does it cost us to build it, build all the components that make up scenario five, and that's the hard number that you see there. That does not take into account the operating cost savings, but then they did an annual cash flow analysis that does. Okay. So what you're asking, and am I interpreting correctly that you're suggesting that the next step would be for FM Solutions to develop an RFP document that would illustrate the scope of services required by architects, engineers, urban space planners to move the project to a next step, right? That is correct. They would develop an RFP that would establish a design criteria model and that would lead certification and lay out all the components that we would want to be part of the design. So then that would be a document that we could move forward and go ahead and put on the street once the committee agreed to it to have architects come back with the response to the proposals. But it would not be, at this point in time, actually distributing anything to architects for, it would be basically just putting together the request for proposal document. That's correct. That's correct. It would just be getting us ready, should we decide to go forward after the capital bonding discussions, that we would be ready at that point to move forward rather than have to start this process at this time. So it's just the next step in this process. So you're asking the committee if they would recommend or move to authorize the creation of an RFP? Yes. You said have FM Solutions do an RFP, but you don't mean they would do the RFP. That's your responsibility. And then distribute it to whoever you think is appropriate. Well, actually, on large building projects, we have historically used a consulting engineering firm to create the RFP to make sure that it's done properly, that it's done well, that it's very customary, and like the EOC, that process was followed. So this would be making sure that the RFP captures everything that we need it to, and I think it would make sense to hire FM Solutions to do that since they've just gone through this process and are very familiar with our needs. It seems logical to me, but as long as it's under a certain amount, you can do that. There is money remaining in my budget at this point that could be used for it if we made the decision this week. But I would not want to do that without the council saying, yes, I think that's a good thing to go ahead and do. Okay. We have two others who would like to ask some questions and comments. Did you want to make that motion, Mr. Terry? Yeah, with the information that the reason that I would go along, do you have any idea what's the range of costs associated with this, Kim? The original study was, what, $80,000? Yeah, they've given us a quote for that, for their professional services, and it's right at $20,000. Well, the reason that I would endorse this without having any more information is two things. One, it's $20,000. Two, it gets us a step forward toward saving in a situation where we are spending so much on keeping this building, you know, in its present state pulled together, held together with baling wire. So $20,000, I'm talking about this building, but the whole effort sooner or later needs to be engaged. That's my view on it. I'd make the motion to that effect. Okay, a motion's been made by Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr. Lane, to authorize and support the General Services Department in requesting an RFP from FM Solutions for design phases, architectural design. Is that accurate? Yes. They'll be preparing the RFP that would then be ready to go out for architectural design. Right. Is there other discussion concerning this motion? Mr. Blevins and Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. I want to make sure I'm understanding. We're going to create an RFP through FM Solutions that will be what architect and design firms respond to to develop Scenario 5, more or less. Yes. So that includes a new building outside of downtown Lexington somewhere, that line. It also includes the new eight-story building concept. Actually, the quote that I have received from FM Solutions looks strictly at the downtown government center and garage, which are the critical components of Scenario 5, that the architectural design services would need to have very specific criteria as part of the RFP so that we have a uniform measure to evaluate them all with when we get to that step. Okay. So just to be clear, we're talking about the downtown spots of this building, the Phoenix building, and let's see, Switau. All of this would get torn down. We build a new eight-story complex, and that's the RFP we're doing? Well, no. What are we doing? If it's torn down, this building would be used for a different use, would be sold. The only thing in Scenario 5 that is torn down is the annex garage, the annex, and the police headquarters. So it clears that block for a new government center and a new garage. Right. My fault. I forgot. This building is going to be sold under Scenario 5. Yes, and Phoenix building. Let me change direction for a second. Is the administration today backing Scenario 5 and saying, as an administration, are you prepared to say this is what we think we ought to do as a city? We're not asking the council to move forward in that direction. Is that what I'm hearing today? Yes. Okay. Well, I agree that we have serious space issues, as the Vice Mayor has eloquently illustrated. I'm not sure I agree with satellite parking and shuttling to and from parking. So I'm a little concerned about that. I'm going to have to think about whether I'm going to vote yes or no on this. But I almost feel the need for a little bit more discussion and thought behind Scenario 5. I don't even necessarily disagree with Scenario 5, but I'm not sure I'm prepared to go design a building that we've not agreed that we're ready to build yet. So that's just where I stand. That's all I have. Could I respond to that, Mr. Stevens? Yes, Mr. Gray. Specific to that, my interpretation of this, based on my own experience, would be that the RFP would be created around engaging a master planning effort, not specific design. That's not what we just heard. I mean, would you clarify? Is it a planning exercise we're going to RFP, or are we RFPing a design of that eight-story building? It would be moving forward with whatever criteria we decided we wanted to have design criteria for the space per occupant, to have the LEED certification criteria, to do all of that and include it in a document that could go out for architecture services. Now, when you get to the architectural services phase, we would include in there opportunity for community input and for vetting and for all of those different components would be part of the design itself. The reason that I'm saying that is that the issue, for example, of off-site parking or not, in this effort, not the development of the RFP, but in the response, the examination of those issues would be part of it. Do you agree with that? Yes. I mean, I think what we should, I agree that we should confirm that that does represent a part of it, because I'm speaking for myself. If I were developing an RFP for this, I would develop an RFP based on a framework that says, this is the general direction that FM Solutions has given and offered. And within that context, you need to respond to us with your fees for a master plan that would examine all of these issues, calibrate these issues, confirm these issues, especially like the parking, especially like the best location, you know, the height of the building, all of that stuff. Well, perhaps I've misunderstood what was being illustrated. So here's what I will be willing to do. We're just going to vote it out of committee anyway, so I'm willing to go along with that. But I'll need to see a scope of work before I can vote for this. Do you have that already? I have a project description, and I'll be glad to provide that to you. Well, whatever it is you plan to give to FM Solutions to say this is what we want you to do, I'd like a copy of that. Okay. And what I would need approval from you all from at this point would be that it's okay to engage FM Solutions. The actual contract would have to come back to you, but I need an agreement to engage them for this fiscal year in order to use the funds that are available. But we can work out the details of the contract and how that is all spelled out once we get past this week. I would amend my motion to include a clear scope like Councilmember Blevins was suggesting for FM Solutions, a scope that would... I'll second that. Yeah. And if there's no objection, that will be included. And this would be distributed to the full council before we vote on it in the work session. I'd be glad to. And the work session would be a week from tomorrow. Does that give you enough time? Or do you want us to do... If you want us to do it today, you'd have to get that scope ready. Yeah. It's kind of... You need to approve the contract. The dollars are in professional services and could be spent, but I did not want to spend them without the agreement from the council that this was something we wanted to move forward with. Okay. So I'll be glad to have a scope of work for the work session. We'll distribute it as soon as I can get it available. Okay. Well, if you do it today, we can bring this up today then. Okay. We have four people who want to speak. Mr. Beard's first. Thank you, sir. Wait just a moment, Mr. Beard. Did you want to speak on the motion? Well, wrapped around the motion. Okay. Please proceed. Or the motion's wrapped around me, one of the two. Like the question of off-premise parking, there's only one way to know whether that will work, and that is to do it. And my guess is that the first time the daycare center calls up and says little Susie's got 101 temperature, that person will no longer park out at Shillito Park because obviously she can't get there and get to the daycare center in any kind of reasonable time. And we are going to leave shuttles sitting around idling all day from 7 o'clock until 9 and starting back up at 4 and go to 6. I just don't see that happening. The other question involves input of the council on such things as council chambers and the council floor as to what it might look like. They may think, for instance, that each council person may need an aide in a cubicle. And the council member sits at one side of the cubicle and the aide sits at the other end of the story. And at least while I'm still here, anyway, I just don't see that working. So are we going to have input, I guess, is the question? Absolutely. How can they then size the scope if we haven't answered some of those questions? All of those questions would get answered in the design phase of it, not in the preparation of the RFP. All of those questions, there will be lots of opportunities to address each of those concerns, as well as the community's concerns and their needs. Well, again, if we make this more complex, I would see that number being something other than $20,000. Well, this is just establishing what we expect from a minimum in the RFP to go out. The components that you've been discussing would all be part of the design phase itself. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Lane. Yeah, I had the pleasure of serving on the, I guess, the committee that reviewed their specifications and credentials and the bid that came in. And I thought this was a very qualified company to do this work. My understanding of the scope of their work for the $20,000 would be more in line of doing a macro review of how many people work for the government, about how many square feet we need, what are some scenarios that are potentially available, and set the guidelines. Like you're saying, specify how many square feet for each council member's office. Ultimately, they'd have a master plan, all that information in there. And they're writing the specification for the design firm to do this work. That's really where we're heading. So that's why I'm supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Mrs. Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. Well, my question is one of why are we in such a hurry today when we will probably be having this capital discussion with our bonding limits first thing when we get back. I guess I'm a little uncomfortable doing this when we haven't had our capital discussion. Because if we're really serious about this project, I would like to see it in conjunction with the rest of the bonding that we've got out there. And I'm one who gets uncomfortable when we put the credit card out every time we want to do something without containing. You know, we used to have kind of a conservative 10% of the general fund. Well, we've gone beyond that. And we really haven't had the discussion on that. We have not discussed as a government what we think we ought to be doing. We just say, well, let's bond it. And so we vote to bond it. And so there's another project, and we say, well, let's bond it. So we bond it. And I'm a little uncomfortable doing it right now before we've had that discussion. So I'm not sure whether I'll support the motion. I realize it's only $20,000, but it does take us a step along the way to say this is the preferred scenario, this is where we're going, and yet it's before the bonding discussion. So I'm just a little uncomfortable with that. Can I respond? Sure. All this would be doing is setting this on a parallel path with the bonding discussion. They've told me it will take them four to six weeks to prepare this. It's not making any decisions on whether or not we decide to bond it. Time is of the essence because if we do not, decides not to go forward with a new government center and a new garage, there's significant investment that needs to be made in our existing facilities. So that's why time is of the essence, because if we are going forward, then we need to do some additional maintenance on those garages, but not completely do the rebuilds that would be required. So there is a sense of urgency, and that is when you look around, our facilities need some assistance. So that four to six weeks would be the critical killer on whether we could do that or not? I don't know that four to six weeks is a critical killer. It just gets us that much further along in the process. That if we don't go forward, then once the decision is made to go forward, we could have already had that piece done. Well, then the question becomes, if the council decides it doesn't want to do this, then the question becomes, how do we find the money to do the repairs to what we've got so it doesn't fall apart even more while we're pursuing whatever we're going to pursue? We're going to have to make decisions to bond some projects. It's just a matter of which projects. Thank you, Mrs. Garten. Mrs. James? Thank you, Dr. Stephens. My question, for camera, goes back to what Council Member Blevins expressed, or what I think I heard him talking about is, say, in Scenario 5, if there's some council concern about the Line J, which talks about the six shuttle buses and the parking away from site, when the contract goes out for the architectural rendering, that will be for Scenario 5? Or is that for just an overall, some aspects of each of the scenarios? It would define what are the aspects that we would want in a new government center and garage downtown is what this is specifically addressing at this point. So of the scenarios that we have, how many of those scenarios capture those architectural renderings, that criteria you just set forth? So out of the five, do we have five scenarios? And out of the five scenarios, how many of those say new building? So it's Scenario 5 for? All but one. Okay. And that's the do nothing. Okay. So I think if there's a way that we can support, I would like to support being able to, like you said, get it on the level playing field so that when we're talking about our capital projects, but I guess my concern or what I'd like to share with my committee members is that if what we're doing will benefit the majority of the scenarios, then maybe it's worthwhile to move forward with the request that Commissioner Cole is bringing forward. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. James. Mr. Stennett? Thank you. Just to reiterate, the next step in terms of cost, we're going to spend about $20,000 on the next step? Correct. And you put some emphasis on getting it done this fiscal year? No. That was only because there are funds currently available that were not spent in doing the RFP for rebuilding the garage. Okay. Now, we can also reappropriate those funds next fiscal year back to you. So I don't think that should be a reason to push it forward today. Just a personal comment. I was just trying to do the timing before we went on break and we lost that time period. I was trying to keep the project moving. Sure. And I appreciate it. I just want to echo that sentiment as well because I think we do have another gorilla in the room, so to speak, or monkey on our back, is the maintenance, deferred maintenance that we haven't been doing, i.e., our own garage. We need to make a decision on that. And four to six weeks is going to delay a lot of that work and RFPs and other things that we need to do to get into that deferred maintenance. So I do think it needs to be on a fast track and make a decision, an informed decision, of course, based on some of the concerns our fellow council members brought up today about the parking, et cetera. So, I mean, I would like to see this go forward with it because I do think there are some other things we need to be doing or could be doing, and by delaying that, we're not going to be able to make a good decision on those either. So I will be in support of moving it forward. I'm sorry. Say that again, the last thing. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lane and Mr. Gray. I just want to follow up on the time issue. I'm just pulling a number out of the air, but let's say the building costs $30 million to build. If we have this inflation at 2% a year, that's $600,000 a year in increased cost. So every day we delay is going to cost us more money when we finally do something, whether it's repairs or building a new building. So that's why I would encourage moving this forward as quickly as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lane. Mr. Gray. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. I think it's probably still worthwhile for us to confirm exactly what it is so we understand, because I can understand the anxiety associated with this that we might be pushing it too forward. The reason that I'm not concerned about that is that what we're really talking about here is what we normally see our purchasing department pull together. And Brian pulls this together for most of the purchases that are made. But because of the complexity of the issues that would need to be addressed in a master plan, which is literally the very first step of a design process, which I also want to say I think you need to show us the full process. Because we're talking, we're not talking about a short fuse here. We're talking about a master planning exercise that would arguably last a year, during which time all of these issues would really be worked through in a big effort. So what we're talking about right here with this RFP is what Brian and his staff would ordinarily do in-house. What can't be done because of the significance of this project. You know, at any time we can decide after this is done, hey, we don't want to go out with these bids for the master plan, you know, for whatever reason. Right now it would be, my motion at least would be to, my motion is to proceed with that work that would ordinarily be done by our purchasing department to prepare the RFP. And then we would decide whether or not to go out with it to architects, for example, for that very first stage, which is the master plan, which examines all these questions that we have that have been coming around the table today. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Gray. I'll call on Mr. Blevins and Levergist to the microphone first. Well, I was simply going to say that I see the county clerk is here and he has a vested interest in whatever we do with that existing building. I'd like to see if Mr. Blevins, the county clerk, has any comments on this. Doc, do you have any digitalis in your pocket you could spare me? No, but that would be hard. You've given me a heart attack. I am unsure as to what this proposition is. When I was on the council in 74 and 75, I participated in a widespread space study and location for the government prior to this building here. The report was an excellent report. It was given back and it was put on the shelf and it's been gathering dust ever since. It was a great report. It would have relocated local government to what we used to refer to as the 80s block, which is where Portofino's restaurant is now, and the motel east of it for some considerable distance where those condos have been built. It never got off the ground. We even had a funding source for it at that time that some of the urban renewal bonds were expiring downtown that was backed by the payroll tax, so it didn't get in. We floundered and we, over a period of time, had outgrown the city hall and we'd disperse the government over several different buildings. I seem to recall that at that time, right after that time, if you wanted to build a garage on your single family property, there were five buildings you had to go to before you could get a permit to do that. Planning and zoning, for example, was in a couple different buildings up on North Upper and we were just dispersed all over. We all concluded that was a terrible idea and moved to try to do something about it. Obviously, any time you try to take on a project of this size, money always rears its ugly head. Stewards moved out of downtown. This building became available and this community commenced to consolidate government. For as long as this building and the annex held us, and the big building where the police are held us for a while, and now we've outgrown that. The thing that disturbs me a lot is that we've decided we're going to tear down the annex and annex garage, and I don't disagree that the annex garage needs to go under the current scheme of things. We're talking about tearing it down and I'm operating over there a huge business, and I have not talked to anybody about this plan. Which means that if you tear it down, I've got to move out. If you rebuild, wherever you're going to rebuild, am I going to come back? I have a major interest in what you're planning to do. I see you moving forward with this proposition today as asking for an RFP for something for which you haven't even decided where you're going to put it. Have you all as a council decided that we're going to locate government on that block over there, tear down the annex and the garage, and rebuild the government center at that location? Is that what you've decided? Because that's what this seems to presume. Then you start talking about satellite parking places. Have you thought about consolidating both at a place where there's plenty of parking? So I don't see you having vetted all the things that you need to vet before you ask for an RFP on anything. I don't see where an architect is going to be able to come in and lay out for you exactly what you're going to have without some of that prior planning being done and some of that decision making being done. And if we're going to move the county clerk and all that operation out on a temporary basis or to come back, folks, you just don't do that overnight. I've moved one time. I moved that entire operation out of the courthouse and two other buildings a long time ago and moved it into the facility it's in now. It takes planning, folks. It takes months and months of planning. So now, from my point of view, I think $20,000 is insignificant when you compare it to this budget. And I wish that you would consider taking a step back and make decisions on, yes, we're going to build all this new structure, if we can pay for it, on that location, or consider other locations and come to a conclusion before you go to this next step. And if in that regard, then I can calm down and have a heart attack on my own schedule. So Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me speak, and I'm sorry to intrude on your business, but I do have a vested interest. Thanks. We're happy you're here, and we appreciate your comments. Mrs. Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. After all, it's not every day we get both the Blevins here. You really articulated, I think, some of my concerns that I didn't really articulate before. And one of the things is that the full council hasn't decided on this scenario. I mean, there's been no discussion by the full council, to my knowledge, and it does kind of concern me that the full council has not made this decision. One other concern I have is, now that publicly we've let everybody know in the world that we have millions of dollars' worth of repairs, I guess I wonder, you know, how easily it will be to sell our facilities. Just a bit of trivia, I voted against buying the Phoenix Building in the first place, and now we're talking about selling it. And I mean, I'm sure this building has a lot of good potential, and we can't base our decision on whether we can sell this, but what if we can't sell it without sinking a ton of money in it? Will these folks who are going to do the work for us tell us a little bit about that? Do we need to put a lot of money into this building to sell it? They have given us an estimate, not an appraisal, but an estimate of the value of the building with it in its current condition, and that is included in the full report that you have. Okay. So that would be available. Now, I mean, we can't speculate on whether we could sell it or not, but, you know, there's not an answer for that. And that really, I mean, I understand that shouldn't be the reason we wouldn't decide on a different scenario, but it is one of my, it's kind of niggling on me back there as a concern. The one good part of this, I think, is that finally, after all these years, we might actually have a plan and something for space use. My problem with buying the Phoenix building in the first place, and the reason I voted no on it, was we didn't really have a good plan for utilization of the space, you know. There hasn't been over the years, I don't think, a good comprehensive, and this goes back years and years, plan by this government, by the legislators and the administration to talk about space and actually move toward using our space. And as Clerk Blevins said, you know, they did a big study and it went on the shelf, I guess. So if I vote, you know, if I vote no on this, it's not because I don't support having a government center that will function well for us. It's more about understanding where we're going to fit in the scheme of bonding, understanding that the full council really wants to do this scenario, and some of those kinds of things. Thank you, Mrs. Gordon. Mrs. James? Thank you, Dr. Stephens. Kimmerer, at what point would Don Blevins, County Clerk, be involved in the conversation regarding any of the scenarios? Well, all along. I mean, he was part of the interview with FM Solutions, was my understanding. They interviewed him and his needs, but he would be part of it. I mean, the design, as Vice Mayor Gray had said, should we take this step and then decide to go on forward with the design, we're looking at least a 12-month process. So until that's completed, there wouldn't be any relocation of anyone. So he, along with the other occupants of each of these buildings, will be involved at each step. Okay. And after hearing the comments from committee members today, if you, what kind of thoughts do you have as far as a change of procedure? Do you have any thoughts that there should be something that's a procedure that's happening now that maybe should be reevaluated, or do you think you still feel as if we should, the motion should come out of this committee to move forward? Do you think there needs to be, what do you think of what's going on in the conversation that's taking place? I guess, I mean, I would like to see us move forward with establishing what goes into the RFP. That's the next step. That RFP can be used even if you decide that that's, you know, that you don't want to build on the space of the annex garage. We still would have the fundamental components of doing a building and what we think is important that needs to be in there. So it's just starting. It's the very beginning step of a very long process. So the RFP, if it passes through committee today, the RFP would come forward to the full council on a work session agenda? Is that what would happen? The first step would, you would be signing the contract, approving the contract with FM Solutions to go through this process. That process would take four to six weeks, and then they would come back with the RFP. And then at that point, it would go to this committee or a smaller group, if so desired, by the council that would review that, make sure it says what we want it to say, and then when we're ready to pull the trigger to go on and look for the architectural services, that would be the next step. That is when you get involved with, okay, what do we really want this to look like and what's important to us, what's important to the community? So that's where all these questions have been brought up about parking and where all that gets vetted. Okay. So the actual RFP, we wouldn't see until maybe August or so? Yes. Okay. Thank you. I think that any action by this committee has to be affirmed or rejected by the whole council in a work session when we make our report. So it's not, we do not as a committee, at least to my understanding, have the authority to pass a motion that would enable you to respond to your request. I think if everybody here votes for it, of course, that's pretty good assurance that the committee would, the council as a whole would do so, but that would be the procedure from here to the work session today or maybe next Tuesday. Mr. Beard, then Mr. Gray again. One other question, which I've been intensely interested in for some time, and that is, and I'd like to ask our council clerk, not council clerk, our county clerk to answer, do you want to be downtown? Is there any need to be with close proximity to us or the police department or might you rather be someplace else with more parking available and for your employees and the public? I personally think the society has changed dramatically. I think that with the electronics that we all have, I don't think it makes any difference where I'm located as long as it's fully accessible on major routes of transportation. And then secondly, I'm going to jump out of my own bailiwick and tell you as a citizen, I don't think it makes any difference if this government entity stays right downtown for the same reason. I want you to remember that I see the patrons of this community far more often than any other function of this government. And I don't think it makes a difference that as long as my location is on a main corridor that it makes any difference that I'm downtown, and I don't think it makes that much difference if you're downtown either. And that would be the same question I would ask about the police department and other functions, these ancillary functions, whether they need to be downtown. I agree, us too for that matter. Someone, and this is a scuttlebutt, someone has said that we're about to move the police operations division out to Spindletop Farm. And if that's correct, that's an example that you've identified that it's not that necessary they be downtown. I don't know then what the administrative offices of it do for you, especially with the electronics we have and cell phones, email, the whole works, and I just think that the way we look at where we locate today has got to be dramatically different than the way we looked at it 30 years ago. Right. I had one other point I guess I wanted to make, which you somewhat alluded to, and that is that we have a footprint out in Coldstream. It would make a lot of sense to me anyway to have the police department headquartered there also, sharing infrastructure and plenty of police cars parked around to enhance security and a few other things that for very little incremental dollars, it would be a bargain, I would think. Obviously, wherever we go for any of the entities, money is a consideration, the value of land and so forth. You know, Mr. Lane operates in the area, and I know as a citizen and a professional in his area, I can give you some good feedback on the value of stuff, and so, you know, where the location is needs to be tempered by the amount of money that that particular land would cost. Some land in every community costs more money than other land, and so you try to hit a happy medium there between the two. All right. Thank you, Dr. Stevens. Vice Mayor Gray, you're the only one on the list now. I think it's probably worth mentioning, I appreciate Clerk Blevins coming in because I think what Don just illustrated is exactly what would occur literally hundreds of times in the course of a master planning exercise. It would occur by technical people who are trained to ask these questions, to engage this kind of conversation, to try to find recommendations and solutions, but again, what we're talking about here would simply be endorsing the creation of an RFP, request for proposal, that would allow us to then take it out to trained professionals to engage these kind of conversations. Understand that there may be a question about FM solutions recommendation, but the job of the, and I think this can be included in the RFP, the job of the professionals will be to confirm FM solutions recommendations and say, you know, this makes sense or this doesn't make sense in terms of parking, in terms of locations of facilities, or the current staff. All of that would be examined. If that's what we say we want the RFP to do, we can also, that's what I meant when I amended my motion, it was to confirm that that's our expectation. Otherwise, I don't know how we get from, my question would be how do you get from FM solutions to a next step? If we don't have technical support, professional support to take us there and guide us. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to clear the record up a little bit. I'm not knowledgeable about any Lexington-Fayette-Armacounty government entities that are planning to go to Spindletop, but we are planning to put the Emergency Operations Center out at Cold Stream Research Park. Just so that anybody, you know, just to clarify that, because it might have been a misstatement made or misinterpretation of some information that was given out, because when there was just, you know, the proposal to put housing out at Spindletop, that didn't go over really well. And I don't think if the Urban County government was putting anything out there, it would go over very well either. Thank you. Thank you. No further discussion. I think we're ready to vote on the motion that is proposed by Mr. Gray to recommend to the Council that General Services be authorized to proceed with hiring FM Solutions to draft a RFP and that the General Services provide us all a scope of that project before we vote for it in the General Council. Yes. May I clarify, and that's based on Scenario 5, is that correct? Yes. Is that in your motion? Did you intend for your motion to be Scenario 5 or did you want it more general? This is exactly why I asked about the scope of work. We don't know, I still don't know what exactly we're voting for. What the Vice Mayor described sounds good to me, but when I look at you, I hear we're really talking about Scenario 5, and I'm not picking on you, I don't mean to say that. It's just it sounds more like we have a particular thought in mind that we now want to further refine into a design, and we're going to go out with an RFP to refine that design. But there is some decision, some level of decision is being made by that, and that level of decision is, yes, we're agreeing with Scenario 5 from FM Solutions. Is that your understanding of what we're about to do? The administration is saying, yes, we would like to move forward with Scenario 5, that we've gone through the process, and this, of all the different scenarios that were considered as part of that process, that this is the one that seems to make the most sense for everyone. So we will be putting some boundaries around what the RFP is, and one of those boundaries is we won't be looking any further at anything outside of downtown. We are making some part of a decision, we're closing in some of the boundaries around what the design will be. So understand that, fellow, I'm sorry. Any further comments? I might say, as Chair, that I'm uncomfortable with picking Scenario 5 right now. The Council has not had a chance to discuss this. As you can see, there's not uniform concurrence with that idea. It might very well be the best, but it would seem that some more investigation, or not investigation, but further deliberation about it would be indicated. That's just my personal opinion. Mr. Gray. Yeah, and I sense that anxiety as well. I'm just curious as to how we get to that without delaying a whole year and spending another million dollars in the money pit. And so, I mean, any thoughts on that? I'm thinking, if you'll forgive me, but I'm just thinking how these projects sometimes occur, and with as many constituencies clearly as exist here, it's going to be ambitious at best, and it's not like looking at the City Hall in Austin. It, I think, had 300 employees in it. My sense of it would be, just thinking out loud again, is that part of a master plan exercise would be to calibrate and to examine this document and the recommendations by folks that are, you know, firms that are as skilled or equal skill as FM Solutions. We might be able to do the RFP that wraps itself around that sort of question. My concern would be that, as a council of 15 members, we don't have, I mean, I'm speaking for myself, I don't have the technical capacity, and I deal with this kind of stuff every day, but I don't have the technical capacity to lead or actively participate in that kind of conversation absent professional support, technical people who really know how to do this. It's a very big task. So I'm trying to imagine how we, you know, sort of have our cake and eat it, too, that the, you know, perhaps you could go back to FM Solutions, but are we going to lose how much time by doing that, and say, can we do an RFP that allows the respondents to confirm, calibrate, challenge these recommendations? I mean, I'm hearing that that's what, that seems to me what I'm hearing, that nobody, that, and I myself am not comfortable, I admit, with the, some of the parking issues that necessarily some of the placement issues, I think a lot of stuff is going to fall out in a good way as this exercise would be engaged, but it is a full, I mean, it's a full year project once it's started. Did that, was that, was my question clear? I guess I'm, so are you asking if we could hire FM Solutions to, I guess, I'm hearing a couple different things here, and one is that the council needs to talk about this and vet it, and I'm not sure what is the process for that to happen, you know, what's the timeline, how does, how does that occur, and are you saying, do we want FM Solutions to come lead that exercise, or is that, is there another framework established for that type of exercise within the council? I would say if you include in your scope the, a review of the scenarios and confirmation that maybe five is the best, or maybe something of four, maybe four and five put together or something, I don't know what would be the best. We haven't had a chance to even discuss that, but it's not us, but I think the professionals that Mr. Gray was talking about would be the ones that would hone in on this, and, but I think it depends on the scope of how you design the RFP, to me. Mr. Blevins. I was just going to offer a suggestion. It would have made a big difference to me if I had heard that we were asking for a RFP for a firm to develop a master plan as to how to accomplish the recommendations of the company that you named. I doubt that you can get that done for 20 grand, but within that master plan, they're going to have to offer you choices, and that way then you can get at what's on the minds of the administration, the council, and also the other vested interests, and also the community. You got before you some recommendations that start out with we're short of space, we're spending too much money maintaining these buildings, I'm short of space, so what you need is a professional, as Vice Mayor Gray said, to help with developing a master plan and assessing the choices within that to accomplish what's already been recommended to you, and then that sets out, that leaves open for you choices to be made along the line. Actually, one of the things that's missing here from you all is that individually and collectively you don't have the time to take up a master plan on what to do. You need that professional, and I agree with that. But along with the master plan, it has to give you the opportunity to make choices, such as where it's going to be located, and how big is it going to be. And then all these side issues, such as satellite parking and everything, fall into place as to how they do. So perhaps what you, and ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you, if we're within $20,000 of not being able to do this, then we're wasting a bunch of conversation on it. The fact that this money is going to expire, I do not personally consider to be a major thing for you to worry about. So maybe what my suggestion would be, what would it cost for this company or somebody that they would help you select to develop this master plan by which you would make some of these choices? And thank you again, sir, for letting me talk. Thank you. Mr. James, did you want to speak? Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Blevins. This has got to be confusing on TV by now. What we have, clerk, just FYI, is the downtown facility master plan is developed by FM Solutions, and it presented five scenarios. And I will make arrangements after this meeting to get you copies and all that so you can see it. I think the problem is, for this committee, this plan makes the case that we need to do something very well. There's no question, I think everybody would probably agree with that, that the existing buildings we have are costing us way too much to maintain and operate. We still are distributed, as you talked about. It would make sense to try and consolidate again, and if you look inside the plan, one of the guiding principles was consolidation, trying to get everybody in one building. What we're not seeing consensus on is what they recommended that we do. Just because these folks, who are bright people and a leader, I'm sure, in their business, say that we need to do it doesn't make it the right thing yet, because there are some things that they can't know about our community flying in here from wherever they came from, Phoenix, I believe. The same thing happened with the management partners audit. Just because they fly in and evaluate and give us suggestions doesn't mean we have to take them. We're now at a point where we have to decide, are these suggestions worthy of going the next step? Today, the administration says, we like Scenario 5, we'd like to go ahead and get working on that. I respect that. I further respect that we have a time issue. We do need to get on with this. Our buildings, the facade of this building in particular, is in dangerous shape right now. We're in danger of pieces falling off. We either got to fix it or decide we're going to tear it down or sell it or whatever we're going to do. We do need to get on with it. So, I want to offer a way out of this, which is, I'm not sure I can support going ahead with the RFP, but what I can support is some sort of aggressive vetting of whether we want to do Scenario 5. If we can just decide that, we're all in on Scenario 5, if the council votes, you know, 9 to 6 or 8 to 7, whatever it is, that that's what we're going to do, then the next day I'll vote for your $20,000, okay? But I'm not past that decision point yet. So, I'm thinking something like a very orchestrated public hearing, a very condensed, well thought out, we're going to have specific people come and give us their opinions on whether we go outside of downtown or we go with Scenario 5 or anything they want to say, and at the end of that public hearing or some very well orchestrated meeting, we make our decision. We vote. Are we going to do Scenario 5 or are we going to pull the plug on that and start over? Whatever it is we think we need to do. But I think that's the next step, is the decision on whether we accept the recommendation of this report, and if we do, then we spend your $20,000 the next minute. I'm prepared to do that. That's where I am. Thank you, Mr. Blevins. Mr. Gray. Okay. Sometimes, what is it? There's an aphorism that says the last thing a fish can describe is water. That's sort of where I am right now. My view, again, on this is that once a master plan, if it is engaged, the first thing a bona fide professional would do is to examine these recommendations and push back. Scenario 5 represents a straw man, and that's it. But the reason that I would, definitely absent technical professionals leading an exercise in a public environment, absent that, I don't know how we're going to get anywhere. I'd be very concerned about that. We've got to have the technical leadership, which is what this would take us to, in my view, where we would actually challenge. There are going to be lots of challenges in terms of planning challenges, where this goes, where that goes, once a master plan is engaged. I would imagine that on a $50 million, $30 million, $40 million project, this is going to be just the initial planning will be a $750,000 to $1 million engagement, and it'll take a year. So all of this would get, all of these things right out of the gate would get challenged. But if we're not ready to go there with the RFP, I think maybe we better, I would think that we would better, be better to understand what the RFP delivers to us, and what the whole building cycle would deliver, how much, how long it would take, what the scope of these activities would represent, because right now, I think we're, it's a real challenge to get our arms around this. We're not used to doing $50 million projects. And that's, and that's understandable. So I would, at this point, I'd rescind my motion. I think we need to, we need to work on illustrating what it is we're going to be accomplishing in the next five years, if we take this path, first step at a time. I'll rescind my second. Mr. Gray has rescinded his motion. If there's no objection, that will be allowed. Is there objection? Okay, there's no motion on the floor. Mr. Beard has got the floor now. Procedural question. Can we not encumber the $20,000 without pulling the trigger on doing the RFP, so that at least that money is, that's in there now can be carried over? I mean, in my mind, that's what encumbrance is. We have to have an identified figure for the, need an identified vendor. Vendor. I mean, there has to be some method where we can reserve that money out of this budget. Got a rat hole anywhere? It would not be good business practice to reserve money without an identified vendor for an identified reason. However, this is your system, and if you want to tell us to reserve the money for future, I will do that. And these are our rules. Nothing says. If the money is not spent, it will go into fund balance, which will be available. It will go into fund balance. Well, I mean, it's not, you know, we're not talking about one one-hundred-thousandth of the budget. And the other issue here is that we could actually ask for it in re-appropriation, but that won't happen before September, so that's the danger of the re-appropriation, and there has to be enough fund balance to support re-appropriation to re-appropriate. I think what I'm hearing is everybody wants a chance to chew on all this, and whether that's till next Tuesday or next Thursday or sometime. If it isn't, maybe it's not that important, but I would like to go ahead and try to figure out some way to let Commissioner Cole. Let me ask you this. What camera was looking for was support from the committee to move forward with this. So why don't we go ahead and issue a P.O. to FM Solutions and hold the P.O. until you all decide if that's where you want to go. We'll commit to you to not send the purchase order to them until you've made a decision that it's okay, but we can go ahead and issue the purchase order to FM Solutions. Innovative approach. That's exactly what I was looking for. That way we can have our cake and eat it, too, and so can Commissioner Cole. I would say from an auditing standpoint, though, you need to decide about that particular purchase order before you go on break, and that gives you a couple weeks, and I don't know what you're thinking in terms of where you want to go with this, but we can issue the P.O. and agree not to send it to FM Solutions before you go on. We may have lost our quorum all of a sudden to my left. Thank you, Mr. Beard. I'm sorry. Can I just add? We don't really need your approval to issue a purchase order. I mean, what we were looking for here, I think, and I defer to camera, but I mean, it was never an issue about whether we could or could not issue an RFP. We can issue an RFP without the Council's approval, but what we wanted to know is if we got ready to do that, do we have your support, and this was a way to bring it to you. So since you do have issues, let us go ahead and issue the purchase order, and let's see if we can get this worked out to everybody's satisfaction before you go on break. That way, you don't have to take a vote, and we'll just commit to you to try to work it out. That would suit me, but I don't think the Council is ready to go down the scenario five road yet. And that's your call. I mean, between now and we have the next two weeks to work it out, but . . . Okay, thank you, Ms. James. Mr. Beard, your name is still here. I just took it away. Are you through? Okay, well, we'll put this dog to rest a little bit then and call on Mr. Jarvis to tell us about how he's found some money so that he can start abating some of these issues related to code enforcement. Good afternoon. My subject is going to be a lot smaller than this, so if that's any help. It's been brought up over the past couple of months about the idea of recovering abatement and civil penalties from code enforcement abatements back into some sort of revolving fund or a self-funded, if you will. What happens every year, we usually run out of abatement funds in the spring. We always ask for money. We get a certain amount, and it's never enough. The idea has been brought up that what if we had the money revolve back into the fund? In other words, there would always be money to abate. We wouldn't have to say, well, we can't do this, we can't do that, because we'd have the money to do it. Typically, the recoveries from abatements and civil penalties, they go back into the general fund. We usually have about $300,000 a year in civil penalties, and we usually expend about $85,000 to $90,000 a year in abatements on abating nuisance issues on properties. That money, of course, goes back into the general fund, and then, of course, come April, we have no money in the budget to abate any properties. Typically, the abatement always falls short. The budget is set for the 2009. We have the abatement set for 2009, so this would not take effect until if we decide to do this, or you decide to do this, to 2010. I'm sure we'll have to work out the details with law and revenue and that sort of thing. The monies that are submitted to law now are deposited through revenue, and we're even looking at ideas of where if someone pays a civil penalty, or they want to pay an abatement off, they would pay it directly to revenue and bypass the section of the law department. Again, I just want to bring this issue to you real quick. I know you're pressed for time, so it's just an idea that's been brought out, and I was asked to come just to talk about that real quick. Questions? Mr. Lane? This issue came before our Links Committee when we were reviewing budget. Of course, the dilemma is that we have to authorize funding for the abatement expense, and then the money ultimately will be collected either through a lien on the property or by billing the property owners. It just seemed to me, rather than going through the mechanism of always refunding that, we could just set up a one-time pool of money, and then as the money is spent and replenished, it would be as an ongoing fund that we would have, so we wouldn't have to fund it every year and just save paperwork and time, and then occasionally we might have to put money in because some people may go broke or bankrupt and we can't collect the money, but that was the idea behind this, just to streamline the process. Ms. James? I wondered if Mr. Jarvis would be willing to explain how the abated funds are used. What do you mean by abatement for those watching? What happens is when we issue a notice of violation on a piece of property, you're given a certain amount of time frame to comply. At the end of that time frame, if you don't comply, code enforcement will hire a contractor to go out and clean the property up, whether it be mowing, towing of a junk vehicle, or debris removal. Once we get that bill from the contractor, we send it to the law department and we send the property owner a bill. If you don't pay that bill, they put a lien on the property. When the monies are collected, they go back into the general fund. So every year, we're always running short on the abatement funds because monies are never put back in the fund, and again, every spring we're hampered under what we can abate because normally we run out of money. How are those contractors found? Through purchasing. They have to go through the whole process of purchasing. Through bids. They have hourly rates they quote. Usually we have about eight to ten contractors on a rotating list. We get bids on the abatement issue, say that the property's been sited, we'll contract three or four of the contractors in a rotating mechanism. They will give us a bid. We take the lowest bid. Okay. I would like to, I do support recapturing the abated funds, but I know some other cities, I'm on the Affordable Housing Task Force, Affordable Housing Trust Fund Task Force, and they also in other cities use code enforcement abatement funds to be proactive in helping folks who will potentially be sited for code enforcement. So I'm interested in recapturing, but the usage of the recaptured funds I think is something that needs to be looked at a little bit more in depth because if we can be proactive with folks not getting sited in the first place, that might be a good way for us to eventually eliminate the need for even abatements if we get all of our properties in tip-top shape. So I'm willing to talk about this further if you want to do a subcommittee task force, something like that, but I am interested and do support it. Thank you. All right. One thing we could do is ask the Department of Finance and the Law Department to get together and draft a proposal for us to accomplish what Mr. Jarvis has said, and then we could bring it back to this committee at a later date. Mr. Ellinger? Thank you. I had a question. You said that there was $80,000, and then I think there was the $300,000. So does it become a wash then, or is the general fund losing $220,000 by that? No, what happens is the $300,000 is a civil penalty. That's what you're sited for on a housing issue. If you're issued a housing notice, you don't comply, you can be sited under the civil penalty, and you're sent a civil penalty, and you either pay the penalty or put a lien on the property. The abatement is the actual money we spend to clean the property up. So really, one is a fine, the other is actual money spent. $300,000 was the amount of fines that we normally issue in a year. To date, we've recovered about $232,000 through civil penalties and through abatement recovery. So the idea has always been maybe we could put a cap on whatever's recovered into that fund, and then as Councilmember James said, maybe you could take the rest of that money, set up a fund to help low-income housing or any other kind of programs that you want to try to tie into that, you know, neighborhood cleanups, developments, corridors, whatever. Okay, thanks. Ms. James? One other point I forgot to ask you. Of the properties that need to be abated, how many of those are vacant or abandoned properties? Typically, 25, 30 percent. We're seeing an increase in that with foreclosures, of course, you know, nationwide. We're not as impacted as a lot of other cities, but we are seeing a few, quite a few number this spring. Had a wet spring, sun came out. There are a few more abandoned properties out there because of foreclosures. Are you familiar with the blight tax or abandoned property? Vaguely, yes. Yeah. That's something also, Chair, that I would like to consider as well. There is an ability to tax vacant, dilapidated, abandoned properties. And some cities utilize that for the similar type of scenario that you're talking about as well. So as we ask for proposals from law, I would like to make that request as well, that that be something that we could look at to start some conversation. Well, with the committee's permission, I will ask law and finance and code enforcement to work on this and report back to us at our next meeting, which will be in the next fiscal year, August. Is there any further discussion? If not, we are adjourned until 3 p.m. Thank you, Mr. Jarvis. Thank you.