# Urban County Council Meeting - June 24, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · June 24, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/531 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/531?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-06-24 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: March 2, 2026 - **Length**: 10,469 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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council convened on June 24, 2008, at 3:00 PM in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Jim Newberry presiding. The meeting followed a standard format with four agenda items covering procedural and legislative business. The Council conducted first readings of ordinances as part of the legislative process, heard announcements from city officials, and provided opportunity for public input. During the session, the Council took 2 votes on various matters and heard 4 public comments from community members addressing the body. ## Attendance All members were present at the Council meeting on June 24, 2008. **Present:** • Mayor Jim Newberry • Gorton • Gray • Henson • James • Lane • McChord • Myers • Stevens • Stinnett • Beard • Blevins • Blues • Crosbie • DeCamp • Ellinger **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Council took action on two resolutions during the June 24, 2008 meeting, both passing unanimously with all 16 members present voting in favor. **Insurance Coverage Resolution** [timestamp: 03:00] Mr. Stinnett motioned for a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to accept proposals for insurance coverages, with Ms. Gorton providing the second. The resolution passed unanimously with 16 ayes and 0 nays. All Council members voted in favor: Mayor Jim Newberry, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, Stinnett, Beard, Blevins, Blues, Crosbie, DeCamp, and Ellinger. **University of Kentucky Clinical Services Agreement** [timestamp: 03:00] Dr. Stevens motioned for a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute Clinical Services Agreements with the University of Kentucky, seconded by Ms. Gorton. This resolution also passed unanimously with 16 ayes and 0 nays. The same 16 Council members voted in favor: Mayor Jim Newberry, Gorton, Gray, Henson, James, Lane, McChord, Myers, Stevens, Stinnett, Beard, Blevins, Blues, Crosbie, DeCamp, and Ellinger. Both votes demonstrated complete consensus among the Council members, with no opposition or abstentions recorded for either resolution. The unanimous support indicates broad agreement on both the insurance coverage proposals and the clinical services partnership with the University of Kentucky. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Council approved several significant contracts and financial commitments during the June 24, 2008 meeting, totaling over $1.1 million in expenditures. **Insurance Contracts** The Council authorized three insurance-related contracts to provide coverage for city operations: • **Workers' Compensation Insurance**: $247,338 contract with Kentucky League of Cities on behalf of New York Marine for excess workers' compensation insurance coverage • **Property Insurance**: $246,000 contract with Public Entity Property Insurance Program for excess property insurance protection • **International Package Insurance**: $4,060 contract with Marsh USA on behalf of Ace USA for international package insurance coverage **Health Services Contracts** Two major healthcare service agreements were approved for the Family Care Center: • **Medical Services**: $303,184 contract with University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics to provide health care services to Family Care Center clients • **Nursing Services**: $327,600 contract with University of Kentucky, College of Nursing for nurse practitioner services at the Family Care Center The healthcare contracts represent the largest portion of the approved expenditures, totaling $630,784 and demonstrating the city's commitment to maintaining comprehensive medical services through its Family Care Center. The insurance contracts, totaling $497,398, ensure adequate coverage protection for city property, workers, and international operations. All contracts were presented as part of the Council's regular business and received approval during the meeting proceedings. ## Public Comment Four community members addressed the Council during the public comment period [timestamp: 03:00]. **Eric Patrick Marr** spoke about community engagement, emphasizing the importance of engaging the right people in the community to achieve organizational transformation and success. **Lewis Cobb** addressed issues of respect and racism, discussing the need for respect for all people in the community and the importance of eliminating racism. **Lillie Miller-Johnson** spoke about constitutional rights, addressing the Council about constitutional rights and the need for accountability in legal matters affecting her personally. **Richelle Clay** represented the Civil Service Employees' Association, speaking on behalf of the organization regarding salary increases and the need for fair treatment of employees. The public comments covered a range of topics from community relations and civil rights to employee compensation and organizational accountability. ## Contested Items The June 24, 2008 Council meeting featured two significant areas of contention that generated heated discussion among council members. **World at Work Ordinance** Council Member Ellinger raised substantial concerns regarding compliance with the World at Work Ordinance, specifically focusing on employee salary increases. The discussion centered on whether the city was properly adhering to the ordinance's requirements and provisions related to compensation adjustments for municipal employees. Ellinger's objections sparked debate about the city's obligations under this ordinance and the potential implications of non-compliance. **Business License Fee Ordinance** Council Member Crosby challenged the proposed business license fee ordinance, questioning both its implications for local businesses and concerns about fairness in its implementation. Crosby's opposition focused on the potential impact the new fee structure would have on the business community and whether the proposed rates and requirements were equitable across different types of businesses operating within the city. Both items generated significant discussion during the meeting, with council members engaging in detailed debate about the merits and concerns raised by Ellinger and Crosby respectively. The heated nature of these discussions indicates these were substantive policy disagreements rather than procedural matters. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting's contested items discussion.* ## Roll Call [timestamp: 03:00] Attendance was taken for the Council meeting held on June 24, 2008. This procedural agenda item established which council members were present for the session. The roll call served as the formal opening of the meeting, confirming a quorum was present to conduct official business. No discussion or debate occurred during this agenda item, as it was purely administrative in nature. The outcome was informational, providing the official record of attendance for the meeting proceedings. ## Ordinances – First Reading [timestamp: 03:00] The Council conducted first readings of ordinances during this agenda item, with key participation from Council members Ellinger and Crosbie. The ordinances presented for first reading addressed two main areas: • **Appropriations ordinances** - These dealt with budget allocations and financial appropriations for city operations • **Business license fee ordinances** - These concerned regulations and fee structures for business licensing within the city During the first reading process, Council members Ellinger and Crosbie were the primary speakers who engaged with the proposed ordinances. The first reading represents the initial formal presentation of these ordinances to the Council, allowing members to review the proposed legislation before subsequent readings and potential adoption. As is standard procedure for first readings, the ordinances were presented for Council review without final action being taken. This allows Council members and the public time to examine the proposed changes to city law regarding appropriations and business licensing fees before the ordinances advance through the legislative process. The outcome of this agenda item was the completion of the first reading requirement for these ordinances, moving them forward in the adoption process for consideration at future Council meetings. ## Announcements [timestamp: 03:00] The Council held a brief announcements segment during the June 24, 2008 meeting. This agenda item was designated as Item III and served an informational purpose for the Council and public attendees. General announcements were made during this portion of the meeting, though the specific content and details of the announcements were not detailed in the available meeting materials. No particular Council members were identified as key speakers for this segment, suggesting it may have involved routine administrative announcements or brief updates that did not require extended discussion. The announcements section concluded without any formal action items or decisions, as is typical for this type of informational agenda item. This segment served its standard function of providing the Council and public with relevant updates and information pertinent to city business or upcoming matters of interest. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 03:00] During the public comment period, four community members addressed the Council on various matters of local concern. **Speakers who participated:** • Eric Patrick Marr • Lewis Cobb • Lillie Miller-Johnson • Richelle Clay The public comment session provided an opportunity for residents to bring issues directly to the Council's attention and share their perspectives on matters affecting the community. Each speaker was given time to present their concerns or comments to the elected officials. This agenda item was informational in nature, allowing for community input without requiring formal Council action or response during the meeting. The public comment period serves as an important component of local government transparency and citizen engagement, enabling direct communication between residents and their elected representatives. The specific topics addressed by each speaker and the details of their presentations were not detailed in the available meeting materials, but the session fulfilled its purpose of providing a forum for public participation in the democratic process. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (16-0): Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to accept proposals for insurance coverages - **Motion** — passed (16-0): Resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute Clinical Services Agreements with the University of Kentucky --- ## Full transcript So it's. Hmm. 1 අ අතුරු අවශ්‍ය වන්න. කිරීම ස්තූතියි. අපි තබන්න. එය කර වීමට නොමු කරාස් 10 සීමික්. එය ඔබට කිරීම කර වීමික් කර බොත්තාපල් කිරීමට. අපි තබන්න. ස්තූතියි. බඩක් කරන්න. ස්තූතියි. අපි ජලය කරානයි. එය කරන්න. ජලය කරන්න. ස්තූතියි. දැනගානය. අපි ස්තූතියි. උහේමුවත් මම. ජලය කරන්න. අපි ස්තූතියි. දැනගානය. අහින්න. අපි කරන්න. ස්තූතිය කරන්න. අැවට කරන්න. අහින්න. තලමාණාකර. ස්තූතිය පතදි මෙතිපතද. ස්තූතිෂදීවෂී. ㄷා කරන්න. ස්තරීපය. වීදරේයා. ඁීතිය Dodd Crapper. 1. Approval of revenues, expenditures, expenses and inter-fund transfers for the General Services District Fund, the Family Care Center Health Services Fund, the Urban Services District Fund, the Police Federated Confiscated Fund, the Police State Confiscated Fund, the Municipal Aid Program Fund, the County Road Aid Fund, the Public Safety Fund, the Spay and Neuter Fund, the Water Quality Revenue and Operating Fund, the Water Quality Construction Fund, the Landfill Fund, the Right-of-Way Program Fund, the City Employees Pension Fund, the Policemen's and Firefighters Retirement Fund of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government, the Extended School Program Fund, the LexVAN Fund, the Enhanced 911 Fund, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Public Facilities Corporation General Fund, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Public Facilities Corporation Parks Projects Fund, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Public Parking Corporation Fund, the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government Public Library Corporation Fund, the Health and Dental Insurance Fund, the Workers' Compensation and General Insurance Fund, the FY 2005 Bond Projects Fund, the FY 2009 Bond Projects Fund, and the Purchase of Development Rights Bond Fund on a divisional level by four control levels for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009 for the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government and its agencies and instrumentalities approving and adopting the Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years FY 2009 through FY 2014 as a portion of the fiscal year 2009 Annual Capital Improvements Budget suspending 5 subsection 1 of the Economic Contingency Ordinance No. 78-2006 and approving funding for the Lexington Fayette Urban County Tourist and Convention Commission for the Transient Room Tax said funding to equal 99.5% of the revenue from the tax Mayor, before we go to No. 2, can I ask you a question on No. 1? I wanted to ask the Law Department on something. Certainly. As Commissioner asked you here, I saw him a moment ago. If you'll stand by for just a moment, Will. Thank you. See if we can get him in. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I had a question on the world at work and the opinion I guess you gave on June 12th that are we going to be having an ordinance that will have to change the world at work when we wrote it. We were supposed to give the amount and the intent was to give the amount of what the world at work said and now we're doing less than that. Will we need an ordinance to change that? Will that be coming forward? Or there were some stipulations that you had in here that said that actually it was on the way that you read it that there would not be that it actually falls within that. So my question is, do we need an ordinance or not? The world at work required 3.9% and as for our employees, we're getting a 2.3% increase? Right. What will be coming forward will be the findings that would need to be made under the world at work ordinance. As I understand, the CAL recommendation was to leave the world at work ordinance in place but not follow the indexed amount for this fiscal year. And if that's the case, is that right? So there's a finding that needs to be made, as I understand. So we can we will prepare it that way. Repeat it. I'm sorry. It will say what we'll do is we will leave the existing ordinance in place. But when that amount is adopted, it will have there are some findings I think that need to be made due to economic necessity or whatever. It's less than the world at work. I don't can't recall it right off the top of my head, but you have to make some sort of finding to that effect. But so you're saying that we're staying within the ordinance by the way that we're presenting it now? Yes. Without the 3.9% but with the 2.3%? Yes. And by the way, Councilman Ellinger, just to clarify, I know that there were some it seemed like there was a comment maybe last week about the ordinance specifically specifying that 3.9%. And I think I had notified you all previously that our codifier had made a mistake in the codification last year in sticking that percentage in. Actually, it's just supposed to say what the council had previously adopted said, the world at work index in last year just happened to be 3.9%. And that's what was approved. But wasn't that what was presented this year was 3.9% also to us as the world at work? As I understand from Michael Allen, that it was 3.7% to 3.9% at the time the mayor was working on the budget. I guess my confusion comes as if it says 3.7% to 3.9% and we're given a 2.3%. Are we still doing what the world at work requires? No. So would we not have to change the ordinance then? No. The ordinance permits you to do less than that under certain circumstances. I can pull that and come back to it, Chuck, if you'd like. If you've got it there. I don't have it handy, but I can. Okay. I guess we can. But I guess it says as long as the first priority is in the budget process, except for any debt obligations, and the only time that it wouldn't be able to afford it would be, my understanding is if your debt obligations couldn't be paid for, and then that would be secondary. Are you looking at the ordinance right now? I am. Okay. If you go, there's a sentence or two right before what you're reading, which I believe is the last sentence. It talks about being able to do less than the index. Well, it says equal to the structure percentage change in the world of work. Is that the one you're referring to? Would you like to come back to it? Yes. Okay. Let me get a copy of the ordinance real quick, and I'll come back to you. Okay. If there's nothing further, Madam Clerk. Ordinance number two for first reading. An ordinance amending sections 13-5 and 13-9 of the code of ordinances to establish an annual minimum license fee of $100 for each business activity, plus $25 for each additional location after the first location, and to further provide that the fees shall be submitted with the appropriate documentation required by the Division of Revenue, that each such location shall post its current license, that payments must be made in advance each year by no later than December 31st, that the minimum license fee shall be accredited on the occupational license fee that otherwise applies, and that a $25 penalty may be assessed for conducting business without a license. Thank you very much. Mayor. Mayor, I have my name. Council Member Crosby. I actually have several questions. I probably need Commissioner Coe. Yeah. Probably both of you, that's probably good. I actually have gone through this ordinance and have several questions regarding this. Just try to bear with me as I have several pages, actually, of questions. The ordinance states that it applies to every person and company doing business in Fayette County. Where's the definition of engaging in business within the ordinance? Does this mean providing any service or goods within Fayette County? If you're going to get into terms in the ordinance, actually, we would need Commissioner to ask you because the ordinance was drafted in the Department of Law. Okay. I mean, that I think is a legal question. If you have a financial question, I'll be more than happy to try. I have a lot of financial questions, but I would like to probably stay on track because I kind of have a flow here of how I'd like to go through my questioning process. So I assume we need to wait then for Commissioner to ask you. I think that would make some sense. I suppose it would also make some sense to get some final resolution of the issue that Councilmember Ellinger raised prior to adjourning this portion, adjourning this meeting, because to the extent we need to modify the ordinance in some fashion, another today is the day to do it. Are there any issues, Councilmember Crosby, that you care to take up with Ms. Coe while we wait? No, I'll wait until he comes back. Okay. Then there was someone over here. Was it Councilmember Stennett? Anyone else? All right. I suggest we just stand in recess until Commissioner Askew returns, and then we'll pick it up from there. Could I make a suggestion? There are two walk-ons for this meeting. Could we – would it maybe be a good idea to move forward with those two things, and then would that be okay? Certainly. Thank you. Yes. Thanks. And who has those motions? Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on my docket a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to accept proposals from the Kentucky League of Cities for excess workers' compensation insurance and excess property insurance, and a proposal from Marsh USA for international package insurance. So moved. Second. I have a motion and second. Motion by Councilmember Stennett and second by Councilmember Gordon to place a resolution authorizing the approval of certain insurance coverages. Any discussion? Councilmember James. I did have a question, Mayor. I'm not sure to whom it's addressed, but I have a question regarding the proposal and wondering if it was the lowest bid, and if it was not the lowest bid, the explanation of choosing KLC over anyone else. I think the unfortunate reality at the moment is that that, too, is a question for Commissioner Askew to answer. Yikes. All right. So, Councilmember Stennett. I believe I can shed some light on that, having read the proposal. Everyone should have received one yesterday, the outline of how they arrived at this motion. Basically, it was not the lowest bid on one of them, which I believe it was the property insurance, and Logan can clarify when it comes. But the difference is now we can get all of our adjusting, or every time we have a claim adjusting under one roof, that would be with Collins and Company, and all three insurances would be under one claims adjuster versus right now we use three different ones. So that was where the savings would be made up, even though it wasn't the lowest bid. And Logan can clarify that when he comes forward. I will hold. Pardon me? I will hold. Before Commissioner Askew? Yes, please. Okay. I suppose then we're back in recess. Unless. Mayor. Councilmember Lane. Would it be appropriate for me to put on a motion for a change of name for street now? I think. I need this. I think we've got enough on the floor right now. Let's just stand in recess until Commissioner Askew gets here, and then we'll try to sort through it from there. Let's just stand by for a few moments. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Commissioner Askew, I think we have a series of questions, and we'll start with where we left off with regard to Councilmember Ellinger's issues concerning the status of the world at work. Right. Increase. Okay. This is Section 21-29, and this is the world at work as it applies to classified civil service employees. And I believe that section is identical with respect to unclassified in Chapter 22, but the sentence that I was referring to, it says, in the event there are insufficient funds to provide this increase, all employees shall receive an amount equal to the structured percentage change in the world at work index, provided, however, that if sufficient funds are not available for this increase, the Urban County Council shall, by ordinance, establish a substitute percentage increase. Now, the last sentence that you're reading, it says, it is the intent of this section that employee salaries shall have first priority in the budget process except for any set of debt obligations. So for any debt obligations. So it was the sentence that I read first was the one I was talking about where you can actually do something other than the world at work index. And I believe Ms. George is here. She's actually prepared the ordinance, but. I guess my question is, is when we go to the intent, and the intent, and I was on the council when this passed, was that we would take care of debt obligations first. And after that, then it became the world at work, which would become employee salaries. Right. And the way that you're reading that is if insufficient funds. Now, how are you defining insufficient funds? Because if we can pay off our debt and we still have money, then we would not have insufficient funds. Because otherwise, why would we pass that? And every time we would say, well, we just don't have enough money, then this ordinance really doesn't mean anything then. Because we're supposed to pay off debt and then employee salaries. And then we pay the rest of everything off. Well, in terms of the interpretation, the ordinance, Councilman Ellinger, I think a lot of that depends on what you all want to make of it, because you all are the council. I don't know what was intended at the time, but it does seem at the time that the council adopted, they did say that it would not have to be that index if economic circumstances warranted it. So, I mean, there are other obligations that the city would have other than debt obligations that I think you'd want to also consider. But part of the ordinance is the last sentence, which says what the intent is. Right. Employees shall have first priority in the budget process except for any debt obligations. Right. And I think that's where we're actually not following the ordinance as far as I'm concerned. And if that's the case, I think we need to change the ordinance if you want not to pay the world at work. And the world at work index is what we had set this to. And according to Mr. Allen, it's 3.9%. So we would, as far as I'm concerned, we're not following the ordinance. And I think that you'd have to change the ordinance if you want to do that, then, this time around for paying 2.3%. Well, that sentence that I read to you a minute ago said you have to adopt an ordinance that sets the amount that you choose to increase, and that's what's before you. And if, obviously, if you don't agree with that, then you need to not support it. But I don't think the way I look at that ordinance, I believe that it allows you to do something other than the world at work. Otherwise, that sentence that I read at first is meaningless. Well, the whole point when we passed this ordinance was so we would take out this ambiguity of what the intent was. World at work was supposed to be second after our debt on the obligation. Well, yeah, actually, though, Councilman Ellinger, I think if you look at the entire world at work ordinance, what it refers to is a merit increases for employees, which is my understanding it's never been funded. In other words, there's a whole system in there that says that if you score a certain amount on an evaluation, you'll get so much. And if you, for instance, the last sentence or the last section that you're honing in on, it says that if an employee scores 1.99 or above on their evaluation, then they will get the world at work. But the whole, it seems like to me, the whole ordinance, the intent of the whole ordinance was to try to establish some sort of merit increases, not just an annual increase like what you're discussing. Well, I agree with that. It was supposed to be tied to some kind of performance base. That's exactly right. And I agree with that. But if that has been established, then the world at work should kick in at that point. And then there's a percentage index that we look at every year. And in this case, it was 3.9, not 2.3. Right. I think that's a legislative decision you all have to make. I don't know if that's a. . . And I guess my point is if it's a legislative decision and it's going to be a policy change, then we have to make sure it's codified that way. Because when we passed this, what we passed, and I was part of that process, was that it was supposed to be second after your debt obligations. And then you were supposed, as long as you did have your performance evaluation, then you were supposed to get the world at work. And I don't think that's what we're doing this time. What? And I think you said you had somebody who wanted to. . . Yes. Ms. George may wish to. . . Further explain that. Speak to that. She prepared the ordinance. I'm sorry, Council Member Ellinger. I was answering another question. Do you mind repeating that? Well, I just, Commissioner Askew had said that you had written the ordinance or were part of it and you had maybe some comments that you wanted to provide. Okay. Well, in the ordinance that will be before you all to approve, it is to do the raise at the 2.3, and that is based on the understanding that there were insufficient funds to do the 3.9. So that's what you're tying it to is insufficient funds? Right. So can we not use insufficient funds every time when we say we just don't have enough money to give our employees a raise this time? Because that's not what we meant to do when we did this world at work. We meant to put employees at the first front end of the budget process, not at the end and say we just don't have enough money this year. We're going to use the insufficient funds. Well, I think in this instance we can make an argument that there is insufficient funds because we've been talking about the deficit that we're going to have and we're trying to cut services and cut costs. So I think we have an argument here that there are insufficient funds, and I don't think you would be able to make that argument every time, depending on the amount of money that we have in the general fund. Not if you use at the last part of it says the intent of this section shall be for first priority in the budget process except any debt obligations. If you can't pay your debt obligations, then, yeah, I would say you have insufficient funds. Outside of that, though, then the employees would kick in. Let me offer a suggestion here. My understanding of the Cal meeting results is that there's been a decision by the counsel at the Cal level at least to fund salary increases at 2.3 percent for the entire fiscal year. That being the case, if you believe, Councilmember Ellinger, that some change needs to be made to the second resolution in order to address your concerns with regard to that prior ordinance, I think it would be appropriate to move to amend it to do say whatever you wish for it to say. Well, I guess my point is if we are going to go with the 2.3, then I don't think this ordinance is being followed. And I think there has to be a new ordinance or something is going to have to be changed. And I don't agree with that. And I don't want that to be done. But I think that in order to do the 2.3, I think that you're going to have to change the ordinance because that's not what we did when we passed this ordinance. I think what I'm hearing from the Department of Law is it's their conclusion. We don't have to do that. Having said that, if you think some change in the language is appropriate, then I would just encourage you to propose an amendment. Let's put it up to a vote. If that's what the Council wants to do, fine. I think the end result of a 2.3 percent increase is where we're ultimately headed here. And we're seeming to get just kind of wrapped up over an issue of whether or not we do or don't need to amend the existing ordinance. And if you think we do, then make an amendment to that. Well, I just think we're in a ñ I'm not going to make an amendment or change the ordinance because the intent here is that you pay after day obligations. And the way I read that is that's what we should do. I think it might set us up for employees if they want to come back and say they want to file suit and say we should have got a 3.9 instead of a 2.3. I think that was what the intent was. And I think they might have an argument for that. Okay. And I don't want to change the ordinance because I think the ordinance, as far as I'm concerned, it should say that they get paid after day obligations. All right. Council Member Crosby had some questions as well. Thank you, Mayor. Do you have the ordinance on number two in front of ñ do you have that with you? Okay, good. Yes. Okay. First, the ordinance states that it applies to every person and business doing business in Fayette County. Where is the definition of engaging in a business within the ordinance? The business definition is in Section 13.1 of the current ordinance. There were no definitional changes as part of this. There is no intent to really expand who the government is capturing, currently capturing the revenue from. So does that mean any service or goods within Fayette County, anybody providing any service or goods? Well, it exempts certain activities, but it's basically an enterprise activity, profession, or undertake of any nature, conducted for gain or profit. That's the current definition of business. Okay. Based on that definition, that could potentially apply to every artist, babysitter, neighborhood person who cuts neighborhood grass, wouldn't it? If it's engaged for profit in Fayette County, it would apply to whoever it's applying to now, and if those are the kinds of people we're normally going after, then it would apply to them, yes. Okay. So let's take it a little further. It would also apply to FedEx when they deliver packages in Fayette County or the Scott County repairman who came to fix my washer the other day. I think, yeah, I think that's correct. Okay. That's true? Can I clarify? FedEx, there's interstate commerce clauses that go into effect, excuse me, and they have to meet taxable nexus in order to be taxable here. Okay. So the Scott County repairman who fixed my refrigerator the other day, he would be included? Yes. Okay. So another example would be every farmer who comes to the farmer's market to sell tomatoes on Saturday morning would now be required to meet the ordinance's condition, including payment of $100 fee? It's not expanding who it applies to. These business activities have already been defined in the ordinance. I'm just asking questions. Can you do that? Is that a yes? Well, I'll tell you what. I think it would be respectful and appropriate to allow folks, when you ask them a question, to finish what it is they have to say. So, Mr. Barbari, I think you got cut off and kind of mid-sentence there. If you'll finish, then you can ask as many questions as you'd like. If I could finish that definition. You're talking about the farmer's market. The definitions that are currently in effect would stay in effect, and those people who bring produce in from out of county are exempt. Those people who grow and sell their produce in Fayette County are currently subject and would continue to be subject. Okay. Let's see here. How will the Division of Revenue handle that person who works a full-time job, pays occupational taxes of two and a quarter percent currently, and may paint a house, say, during the summer part-time, and may shovel snow in the winter part-time during winter weekends? Since they'll already be paying two and a quarter on their wages, will they receive credit against this fee? The current administration of the occupational tax is the same. It will not change with this. The payroll option on the occupational license is two and a quarter of wages and compensation. Then there is a net profit, which is two and a quarter percent on any net profits. So in CPA terms, it would be Schedule C, Schedule E, and Schedule F activity that if it occurred in Fayette County would be subject. Okay. The ordinance also requires that the place where the person or company conducts business may be changed during the year, but only with the consent of the Director of Revenue. So every person or company that changes location during the year must contact the Director of Revenue and get his permission. Is this correct? No, ma'am. The requirement is to notify us of the change so we would know where your location The option with the Director is whether an additional $25 is charged or if that $25 additional site would be waived because you used to be in Location A, Vacate A, and now in place of that are in B. But if you had Location A and added a new Location B, there would be an additional $25 for the second location. Okay. The ordinance requires an annual fee of $100 for each business location or a fraction thereof in the case of a new business. How is this fraction going to be calculated? Could you repeat that? Because I'm not familiar with a fractional application. All right. I'll repeat it. And you can just tell me if I'm incorrect on this. You know, I'm not a CPA by any means. But the ordinance requires an annual fee of $100 for each business location or a fracture thereof in case of a new business. It says $100 is due for any activity during the year. So if you enter into Fayette County with a brand-new business in January, the fee is $100. If you start your business November 23rd, the fee is $100. So say, for example, if they pay a fee, if Business Day shuts down, if they pay their fee before December 2008 and they shut down their doors sometime during mid-year, they don't get any fraction of their cost back if they paid $100 for the whole year. That's correct. That's why it's called minimum license fee. The ordinance requires that a license be posted in a prominent location, viewable by the general public. Since a sizable portion of these fees will be generated from individuals, home-based businesses, real estate investment LLCs, will they be required to post a copy of their licenses outside their homes? That's not where they conduct their business, so they would not be required. What we're trying to do, it's two-step. We're trying to make enforcement easier and have a minimum contribution to the infrastructure of the urban county government. And so we have inspectors, licensed inspectors, that go to a location and say, are you licensed? Currently that's not an easy question to verify because there are so many doing business as and LLCs and single-member LLCs that are owned by corporations, and it becomes very complicated to find out who the owner is and what entity is actually registered with us. By having this piece of paper to show that they have registered, we would instantly know without doing additional research on whether they had paid their minimum license fee. I would disagree that some people don't run their businesses out of some of those places. I think I would disagree with you on that point. But in case of the individual who holds three rental property LLCs and lists her home address as a business location, since this is where she manages the property from, will she need to post all three licenses on her front porch? I mean, again, you have somebody running a business out of their home. Then they should have it on their person so that if we knock on the door and say, are you licensed to do business, then they can start to say, But in the ordinance, does it say on person or posted? I would have to defer. It says posted. So I can have it in your kitchen if you want. Okay. So they'll have to have this posted in their home, not on their person, as you just stated? Whatever works. We're trying to implement a method of confirming that they had paid their minimum license So the babysitter who works for profit will need to keep their license on their person? Or where they do their babysitting. Okay. What about the person who holds rental property in Florida under an LLC that was filed in Kentucky and all activity is being done from their Fayette County home? Well, we have a separate test for rental activity to see whether it is a business activity or not. And that's $50,000 of rental receipts in Fayette County. Okay. The ordinance requires the payment be made in advance of December 31st each year. Will notices be sent out? Yes, they will. Will the penalty of $25 start accruing on January 1st? We hadn't really discussed that. I would anticipate that the month of January would be used to implement. So I would anticipate that that would occur. into effect after the month of January. Okay. For those individuals and companies that fail to make payment, how will the city enforce those penalties? Well, we have various programs in order to identify businesses that are conducting activity in Fayette County but have not registered with us, and we'll use all of those means in order to identify them. Do you file suit? That would be up to the law department. I don't know that filing suit over $100 would be their choice, but we look at advertisements. We look at the Sunday paper, the incorporations with the county clerk. We get information from the IRS on who's filed with addresses in Fayette County, and we mostly do everything through correspondence. Can the city place liens on real property? The city has the right to place lien on the owner's personal property only for payroll withholding, which they hold in trust on behalf of the employees and did not remit to the city. What if the LLC or similar entity has no assets? They would have to have a business activity in order to be required to have a minimum license fee. Well, can they enforce it against the individual members, then? The net profit is assessed on the business entity, not the owner. We don't follow the ownership, absentee ownership or anything like that. We're looking at where the business entity has activity. The problem? Okay. Since this has been created under the occupational license fee ordinance, will this be deemed a nonpayment of taxes? One second. She has a question on where this is going. Generally, the term fee and tax are used interchangeably on the ordinance, if that's what you're asking. So it's essentially a tax, if that's what you're asking. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. The term fee and tax are used interchangeably in the ordinance. So if you're asking whether this is akin to a tax, the answer is yes. Okay. Thank you. The ordinance provides that for a person or a company that owes occupational license fees, as otherwise provided in Chapter, the annual minimum shall be a credit for that year only. This appears to be different from the docket summary. The docket summary says that a business that earns in excess of $100 will receive a credit for that year. Where does it state this in the ordinance? Have I missed the reference to earning in excess to $100 in the ordinance anywhere? I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you suggesting the title is insufficient because it doesn't contain that it's limited to that year? Yes. Okay. I don't, from a legal standpoint, the title is required to put someone on general notice of the content. If you all have a problem with the title not including that, we could certainly have it placed in the title. But when some, this would be required to be published in full. So basically you're put on notice by reading the entire thing when it's published as to what its content is? All right. Using this scenario set forth in the docket summary, a business earning $5,000 per year would pay approximately $213 in taxes, but would receive a $100 credit, meaning that their tax, their total tax obligation would be $113. The person earning $50 annually, selling their stuff at the monthly yard sale, would pay $101.13 and would receive no credit, meaning their total tax obligation would be $101.13. How do we justify the company making 100 times more, only paying $12 more? Moreover, how do we justify charging 100 times more in taxes than what the yard sale proprietor earns on an annual basis? First of all, let me restate what I think the scenarios are. The way the ordinance is written, everyone pays a $100 minimum license fee if they are conducting business in Fayette County. Then they get that $100 credit against whatever their federal income tax computation comes out to be. So if someone owed $200, they would get a $100 credit and remit an additional $100. Their total obligation is $200. One was paid, $100 was paid in January. The next $100 was paid the following April 15th. If someone had a business that generated income that did not calculate to be a $100 obligation to us, let's say they owed $50 in taxes, then they've already paid the $100 minimum. And that $100 minimum is all they would pay. They would remit zero with their filing because they've already paid $100. It is a minimum, which is a floor, so it is not a scalable tax from $1 to $1 million. Everyone pays the minimum tax of $100. And if their obligation comes out to be more than that, they would pay the additional amount. So basically, you're hurting people who are revenue-neutral at best and losing revenue by not giving them any type of credit on their taxes because they're not making any income. So you're creating an atmosphere where people who are trying to start a business or whatever, they're not getting any type of incentive. They're paying $100 to the city in administrative costs. And basically, they're having a 100% tax increase if they're, at best, revenue-neutral or losing money under that scenario. So in the docket summary, there are 27,700 businesses registered in Fayette County and 11,900 businesses paying no taxes. First of all, how many individuals in Fayette County are there who operate as sole proprietors either on a part-time or full-time basis? I can get you that number, but I do not have it with me. I would think that that number would probably be three to four times higher than the amount we were given in the summary. And then how does the city come up with the number of businesses being registered in Fayette County? It's from our database, and if I could expand on that, we currently have 27,700 businesses that have filed a net profit return with us. Can you repeat that number? I'm sorry. Pardon me? Can you please repeat that number? Yes, 27,714. So you've had 14 more. And there are currently 11,919 who pay us no net profit tax at all. And if you look at the occupational tax, about 85% of the occupational tax income comes from payroll, the working person, and they pay two and a quarter percent on the first dollar of income they earn. And yet almost 12,000 of the 27,000 businesses pay zero to the Urban County Government to support the infrastructure and the services that we provide. And so the concept is that they pay a minimum tax, that they are contributing something toward the services and the infrastructure that the Urban County Government provides them. Well, to suggest that these people pay no taxes, I would say that that's almost factually inaccurate. For example, say an LLC is formed to purchase rental property in Fayette County. They pay real property taxes, don't they? They pay other fees and taxes. I was talking about occupational taxes. But they're still paying taxes to help support infrastructure in Fayette County. They do pay the, is it $0.08 per hundred for the general services fee? Do they support LexTran? Which $0.05 goes to the library, then there's an additional $0.06 to LexTran. Do they support our local schools? That would be the school's assessment of the property tax. What about the company that has contributed millions of dollars over a period of years, both local wages, real property taxes, business net profits, and due to economic uncertainties are having to write off a bad debt, show no earnings for one year. We're going to classify them as not contributing to our tax base? We would show them as paying zero net profit that year under the former taxing structure. Under this taxing structure, they would be required to pay $100. The mayor's budget address stated that there are hundreds of businesses filing for licenses, but do not generate revenue for the community. This is also not factually correct, is it? I can't speak for the mayor. Do they pay local attorneys to draft documents? Pay local CPAs to prepare the mandatory tax filings? They provide a lot of jobs to Lexington citizens. Am I wrong? I'm administering the occupational tax. The mayor's budget address also stated that one of the goals for passing this ordinance was to discourage businesses which are not active for filing a license. There are many reasons why a company is formed. Some of them are LLCs because they provide liability protection from their personal assets. Is that correct? I defer to legal for that answer. I don't think they're listening. I am listening, and I don't know that your law department can tell you why corporations incorporate or LLCs decide to do LLCs versus limited partnerships or corporations or whatever. So I don't know that we're prepared to answer that question. Okay. So not knowing why many of them would, just to, what you just said is not knowing why they would form, but oftentimes they go on to contribute a lot to our community, and oftentimes they, in fact, end up creating hundreds and hundreds of jobs in our community. Is there a reason why we want to discourage this through this ordinance? Well, I would answer that we're not discouraging it. We are saying that the cost of doing business in Fayette County is $100 a year, and that would be taken into consideration for anyone who wants to do a business enterprise in Fayette County. We deem that not an onerous amount and feel that it's a fair and equitable minimum floor for an occupational tax for net profits. Okay. You've said that a justification is that you need this ordinance so that people, individuals in business start paying for the services that are required to administer the oversight of the people engaging in business in Fayette County. I would assume that most of these services are already being handled electronically, but could you explain exactly what these services are? The services of administering the occupational tax? Yes. Well, we have a staff who audit returns. Just like the state or the federal government, we see if they were filed correctly, have correspondence to make sure that they do file. We do that for both the payroll and the net profit. And we have initiatives in order to try to have everyone register that is doing business. And I alluded to those earlier about looking at new incorporations, advertisements. We have a license inspector that drives around, looks for the corner that is a temporary merchant or someone, the advertising on the side of the truck, that type of thing, and investigate those. We go to construction sites and look for a subcontractor list to make sure that those people are paying their fair share. So the efforts are there with the staff. We do have a computer program. It is not a silver bullet. It is 1980 vintage, and we supplement that with a lot of manual intervention. We have also engaged in an information sharing program with the IRS, which has a price tag to participate in that. But we feel that it is economically sound because we do get a listing of those people who filed with the IRS with addresses in Fayette County. So we have multiple programs and multiple efforts in order to administer the occupational tax. So how many people do it currently? How many people? We have 32 people in Division of Revenue. Not all of those are dedicated to the administration of the occupational tax. Probably 20 of them are. And when this is implemented, how many in the future will you need? Well, we are adding four staff this year, and then we will look to see whether incrementally that makes sense for next year. So just based on what you told me with some of the – it was my understanding that most of this happens to the Secretary of State. You file with the Secretary of State, and I pulled up some of the costs associated with filing with the Secretary of State. What kind of formula did you use to come up with the $100 fee? Where did that come from? It came from a discussion on what would be a reasonable minimum license fee for doing business in Fayette County. I believe there are other communities in Kentucky that have that. They're at $25 and $50. They were passed back in the 70s and 80s. We looked at those fees and looked at it being 2008 and felt that $100 was reasonable. Did you meet with any business leaders, anybody from the community regarding this fee? I did not have discussions with the business community. Thank you. Is that all your questions, Ms. Crosby? I think so. Okay. Counsel Member James had some questions, but I believe, as a matter of fact, he had questions for Commissioner Askew about the risk management issue that's presently on the floor for discussion. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm sorry, Counsel Member James. I was working on the other matter with you. That's okay. Just a couple of quick questions. I know that we received a memo, which Council Member Sinnott led me to. Thank you for refreshing my memory on that. And it was regarding the workers' compensation and property insurance renewals. Right. And I did have a question about lowest bid. I've sat in on some purchasing things, and I know how important it is that we follow procurement procedures. And I wondered if this has been evaluated. I'm sure it has, but I just wanted to get it on the record that it has been evaluated and there is no violation of procurement procedure by taking the non-lower bid. No, I think this is lowest and best bid. And I also have to say that I think — I'm sorry, did you say it's a lowest and best bid? Lowest and best bid. Okay, because I thought — I think here, the problem that you have in trying to analyze these quotes, and that's part of the reason it's taken a while, is because, as our broker said, what this thing boils down to is the adjusting services that you need to have in order to do the adjusting within our self-insured limit. And so, we had to go back and do an analysis and look at some of our historical information, which we did. Now, the workers' comp is a little clearer, and you'll recall we went through this same exercise last year on the liability because, as part of KLC's bid last year, the claims adjusting service was bundled along with some loss control service. We have the same thing here on our property, which I think is what you're referring to. On property, the adjusting other than auto-physical under $100,000 is included in their bid. So you've got to — there is no adjusting service included in the FN bid. And so, we've tried to break that down for you. But I do think you are correct, and that's why I wanted you all to see it. If you look at just straight dollars, it does appear that the KLC bid with the adjusting service is a bit more expensive, but I do think that there's value, and I'm not sure how you quantify it, having everything in one place where we can walk across the street to KLC and get excellent service, which we have been getting on our liability coverage. So that's the recommendation. But if you all decide that you want to, on the other, go with, you know, FM Global, that's fine. We'll go forward with FM Global. Well, and on the page three of our memo, and it talks about salaries for adjusters and for FM Global, is that $66,000 our person that works for LFUCG? That's correct. Would that person be out of a position? No. That person would not. There were, if you recall, there were, there was, in the management audit report, there was, it was suggested that there be two positions currently filled that would be abolished, and there was a third position, this claims adjuster position, that it was recommended would be abolished only if that person was performing duplicative services. The mayor has recommended, and you all, I think, are approving in this budget, that be temporarily assigned over general services. It has been suggested by, to me, by a couple of council members that this person remain where they are and continue to help with subrogations and maybe some auto fiscal. If that's the case, I mean, we can work through that as well. That's not a decision we're prepared to make right now. So, no, there is no proposal that that position be abolished. Okay. It would be transferred temporarily to general services. Okay. And at KLC for the auto physical liability claims, would those be handled by one or two particular people, or would it just go through a customer service kind of role and we would, we have a designated person? Actually, the folks from KLC are here because they're here to make a presentation, but Bill Hamilton, who is over insurance, is here, and he may be able to respond to that. I don't know the answer to that, Council Member James. Thank you, Commissioner, and certainly to answer your question, we would assign a team of folks to work with you based on their area of expertise, whether it be workers comp, general liability, or auto physical damage. So you won't be working with somebody new. It'd be a team of probably three that would be dedicated to your account. Wonderful. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Just to refresh everyone's memory, we had a motion by Council Member Stennett a little bit ago to, earlier today, to add a resolution to the docket. For first reading, and that resolution is detailed on your screens for your review. Is there any further discussion on that motion to add that resolution to the docket for first reading? Seeing none, those in favor of adding that resolution to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk, would you provide first reading? Resolution number one for first reading, a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept the proposals for FY 2009 from Kentucky League of Cities for and on behalf of New York Marine for excess workers' compensation insurance at the cost not to exceed $247,338 and for and on behalf of Public Entity Property Insurance Program for XX Property Insurance at a cost not to exceed $246,000 and with Marsh USA on behalf of Ace USA for the International Package Insurance at a cost not to exceed $4060 subject to a premium audit and subject to sufficient funds being appropriated for the purposes and authorizing payment to Kentucky League of Cities on behalf of New York Marine and Public Entity Property Insurance Program and Marsh USA on behalf of Ace USA and authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute all relevant documents to cancel the current contract with underwriters, safety, and claims. Thank you very much. That concludes the resolutions entitled to first reading. I think there is one more walk-on. It was mine. Dr. Stephens. I move to place on the docket a resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute clinical service agreements with the University of Kentucky, Colleges of Medicine and Nursing for the provision of health care services to the clients of the Family Care Center. Second. I have a motion by Councilmember Stephens and a second by Councilmember Gordon to add a resolution to the docket authorizing the acceptance of a proposal from the University of Kentucky with regard to the management of the health clinic. Provision of health care service to the clients of the Family Care Center. I stand corrected. Amounts not to exceed $303,184 and $327,600. All right. We now have that on our screens. Thank you. And we have a second by Councilmember Myers. Any discussion? Those in favor of adding that item to the docket, please indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. Madam Clerk. Resolution number two for first reading. A resolution authorizing and directing the Mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to execute clinical services agreements with University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics to extend the current agreement for the provision of health care services to clients of the Family Care Center through June 30, 2009 at a cost not to exceed $303,184 and with the University of Kentucky College of Nursing for nurse practitioner services at the Family Care Center at a cost not to exceed $327,600. Thank you very much. Are there any further motions? Seeing none, that takes us down now to the announcements item on the Council meeting agenda, item number three. Are there any announcements? The last, seeing none, we'll move ahead. The last item is for public comment. Does any member of the public wish to address the Council? All right. Yes, sir. If you step to the, okay. If you would please give us your name and address and you'll have three minutes. Yeah, my name is Eric Petrimar and I've been here a few times. I live at 4165 Hartwood Road, Tambark. First, I just wanted to say a few things. I went to Acton Park on Saturday to watch a T-ball game. Council Member Crosby's son played and that was a good time. The Parks and Recreation Department, I think, is very good at Lexington. My memories as a kid, T-ball and junior pro basketball, great stuff. Moving forward, I'm writing some articles for Business Lexington with Tom Martin and I'm doing an upcoming series on Kentucky football, the organizational transformation that they've gone through, their success they've had. According to Harvard Business Review, 75% of organizational transformation projects fail. Lexington, in my understanding, is a facilitator for Destination 2040 is trying to go through this transformation process ourselves. A lot of companies do. Most people fail. Most organizations fail. Talking to Coach Brooks, Coach Phillips, Coach Brown, Andre Woodson, Wesley Woodyard, Jacob Tammy, Marcus McClinton, and Ms. Barnhart, all of them on their own accord, without having any guidance or leading, all talked about the most important thing to make our city great, to make their football team great, to make its people. I've talked about this many times before, getting the right people in the right seats on the bus, as Jim Collins talked about. People. And so, I want to talk about Lexington's historically bad history, I guess to repeat myself, of getting the right people in the right spots, engaging our people, engaging the entrepreneurs like Council Member Crosby is talking about protecting, engaging our greatest hearts and minds, our intellectual capital, so that we can have plenty of revenue because we have great people doing great things. For instance, on a practical level, Holly Weideman, down on old Georgetown Street, has built this great urban development, urban infill project called Arctec Lofts. According to my understanding, hardly anybody in this room even knows that exists. However, Louisville, with their progressiveness, their ability to engage, has contacted her, and within four months, they rezoned 13 city blocks to have her and her partner come in to do this new development project called The Edge. It took four months to get 13 city blocks rezoned. I don't know how long it takes Lexington to take care of the ladies' flood problem from last week, but I do know, for instance, that it took four months to do 13 city blocks. I know that I've got countless stories like this around Lexington, and then we fuss about 2% here, $100 here and there, when we've got much bigger things, in my opinion, that we can do, much bigger opportunities, just so many things that we as a city, not just the members here, but just all of us. I think it begins here. We have so much potential if we could simply engage the right people. I talked to Laurie Williams. I have 18 seconds today. Laurie Williams of the Knight Foundation today. I talked to people all over the city with Destination 24. Everybody says the same thing. We lack this, and it's very, very expensive for our bottom lines. It's more than $100. We're talking about millions of dollars that we cost ourselves. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Cobb. Thank you, Mayor. Peace and love to the Council. I'd like to start off by quoting something that I listened to today. Doobie Brothers said, what a fool believes, he sees. A wise man has the power to reason away. Lexington needs to have respect for us black people in this community. Not just them. I've stressed that, but I'm going to stress something different. We've got to have respect for ourselves. There's going to be some new black leaders in here, in this city, that's going to mingle with the Mexicans, going to mingle with the whites, going to mingle with the Irish. As a white man, a black man can't even walk down the street and get the respect he deserves. But it's going to change. I'm going to change with the help of the most high. It's a beautiful day in Lexington. The weather's beautiful. I encourage everybody to get a shoe shine. I'm changing the route. We're going to spread peace and love. Whether you want it or not, I'm going to give it to you. I don't need to be stroked. I won't shine everybody's shoes. If you allow me to do that, we're going to balance the budget, number one. If everybody around me gets shoe shine, we're going to balance the budget. We're going to pay somebody's rent. We're going to give away money. We're going to help people in wheelchairs. We're going to have another Rite Aid downtown. We're going to do things that a city needs to do. But we do got to engage the right people. And I'm the chosen one, because I'm on the streets every day, turning down urgency, helping people, regardless of what color they are, doing whatever I've got to do to shine. I'm asking the city council to help me. We can eliminate racism. We can build, do anything, as long as we do it together. But y'all got to respect us. That football team was brothers on that. It was whites on that. It was all kind of people. But they respected each other. And when them brothers put their mind together, they did it. We got brothers on the basketball team that done some marvelous things. Gillespie's a marvelous coach when he recognized the power of the brotherhood. And we got to make a decision today. If we're going to respect everybody, do it. We don't just have a certain class of people. We got to respect everybody. And that's the only way it's going to work. Shoe shine VIP. Thank you. Ms. Johnson, if you would step to the podium, give us your name and address. We'll give you three minutes. My name is Lily Millard-Johnson. I live here in Lexington on the Russell Cave Extension. I'm addressing the council again today because I have addressed and went to these companies and agencies and left letters about the ñ I've even went to the bar association and gotten a letter. And these are under the government agency heading, city council or the city heading. And therefore, they're under your jurisdiction. So I'm going to ask again that you help me to end this venture to straighten out and have these people that are in contempt of court to pay. And it's just like everything else. We have to make an analogy for people to see the real problem in this issue. Just because it's my issue doesn't mean it doesn't become your issue. You know, when the police went in and shot up that young man and they had half the city blocked off, well, it was in the black neighborhood. There had never been any real, real problems in the black neighborhood. I've been here since the 50s. No, 60s, because I moved here when I was five from Scott County. And I walked these streets and I thought I was safe. But what I'm saying is I'm not safe. I'm not safe when the community and the black leaders and the white leaders have refused to acknowledge that these people are in this community to steal from our people and our community. If they stole from me, they're not stealing just that. It's my credibility. It's my life that they've messed up. And you've gone along with it. If you're a follower, you lead. You don't follow behind the last person that messed up and say, oh, I'm just going to jump off the bridge with them. Because you've continued in that falsehood. Now, our constitutional right states that I have those rights for an attorney, an attorney to do a good job, not to do a halfway job and pretend, send out a bunch of papers and pretend that they're really defending me. It's my right to have defense from the EEOC who has bumped out of it because they made a mistake. I don't know if they made it on purpose or why. But they took and did some things that were not right. And have they been held accountable? No. Are we holding these people accountable? Most of the actions that was taken against me is things like theft, murder, attempted murder, assault and battery. The thing on the bus, that's assault and battery. That man deliberately hit that bus, hit those brakes and threw me across and then stood there and screamed at me to get up. I'm going to say this one more time. Can I have a few more minutes? No, ma'am. Your time has expired. Please do what is right. Do the right thing. Thank you very much. The last person who's indicated an interest in speaking during the council meeting is Richelle Clay. A violation of constitutional right is treason, and this State could be held accountable for that. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Ms. Clay, you'll have three minutes. Hello, mayor and council. My name is Richelle Clay, Civil Service Employee Association, and we stand here before you today imploring your help. The LFUCG non-collective bargaining employees have desperately worked with the council to ensure our employees are treated fairly in our Equal Opportunity Employment Agency. After numerous phone calls, various meetings, countless perusals, the council, withstanding the direct violation of the ordinance, despite the 2007 rewording still containing wording to protect our salary increases, funding permitted, voted to provide an increase at the beginning of the fiscal year, and for that we are grateful. We are now expressing our disappointment in our law department's willingness to change the ordinances to the civil service comprehensive plan, especially because the law department hides behind these same civil service laws and protections in which it violates. CSEA implores this council to work with us to bring LFUCG back to a reputable employer and not allow the changes to our laws at will. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Clay. Does anyone else wish to address the council in its meeting? Seeing no one, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. We have a motion by Council Member Blevins and a second by Council Member Gordon that we adjourn. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Motion carries. We're now ready to