# Committee of the Whole - Budget COW - May 25, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 25, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5365 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5365?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-05-25 - **Last revised**: May 25, 2021 - **Length**: 23,471 words - **Speakers**: Could You Repeat That > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. 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 Council held a meeting on May 25, 2021, at 10:00 AM via video teleconference, with Councilmember McCurn presiding. The meeting focused on receiving informational reports from two council committees, with no legislative action taken. The council heard two informational presentations: the General Government Link Report and the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Link Report. Two motions were made during the meeting, though both agenda items were informational in nature rather than requiring formal votes on legislation. No public comments were received during this session. ## Attendance All twelve councilmembers were present for the May 25, 2021 meeting. **Present:** • Councilmember McCurn • Councilmember Moloney • Councilmember Sheehan • Councilmember Brown • Councilmember Worley • Councilmember Bledsoe • Councilmember Reynolds • Councilmember Plomin • Councilmember Lamb • Councilmember LeGris • Councilmember Baxter • Councilmember James Brown **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted two roll call votes during the meeting, both related to staffing positions and funded through budget stabilization. **Citizen's Advocate Position Expansion** [timestamp: 01:30:00] Councilmember McCurn motioned to increase the Citizen's Advocate position from 20 to 25 hours, with a second from Councilmember Sheehan. The motion passed by a vote of 10-2, with funding to come from budget stabilization. Voting in favor: • Councilmember McCurn • Councilmember Sheehan • Councilmember Brown • Councilmember Worley • Councilmember Bledsoe • Councilmember Reynolds • Councilmember Plomin • Councilmember Lamb • Councilmember LeGris • Councilmember Baxter Voting against: • Councilmember Moloney • Councilmember Fred Brown **Sustainability Coordinator Position** [timestamp: 02:15:00] Vice Mayor Kay motioned to add a Sustainability Coordinator position, seconded by Councilmember Sheehan. The motion passed by a narrower margin of 8-4, with funding also designated to come from budget stabilization. Voting in favor: • Vice Mayor Kay • Councilmember Sheehan • Councilmember Brown • Councilmember Worley • Councilmember Bledsoe • Councilmember Reynolds • Councilmember Plomin • Councilmember LeGris Voting against: • Councilmember McCurn • Councilmember Moloney • Councilmember Fred Brown • Councilmember Baxter Both approved positions will be funded through the city's budget stabilization fund. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two appropriation items totaling $24,000 for municipal infrastructure improvements. **Solar-Powered Pedestrian Crossing Signs** The council considered funding of $14,000 for four solar-powered pedestrian crossing signs. No specific vendor or recipient was identified in the available materials, and no resolution number was provided for this appropriation. **Shillito Park Improvements** A second appropriation of $10,000 was discussed for the purchase of five park benches at Shillito Park. Like the pedestrian crossing signs, no vendor or recipient information was specified in the available documentation, and no resolution identifier was provided. Both items represent capital expenditures for public safety and recreational infrastructure improvements within the municipality. The combined $24,000 in appropriations would enhance pedestrian safety through improved crossing visibility and expand seating capacity at the community park facility. *Note: Specific resolution numbers, vendor information, and transcript timestamps were not available in the source materials for these financial items.* ## Contested Items The May 25, 2021 meeting featured two significant contested items that resulted in split votes among council members. **Citizen's Advocate Position Funding** The council engaged in debate over how to fund an increase for the Citizen's Advocate position. The primary disagreement centered on the funding source, with members split between using budget stabilization funds versus NDF (presumably Non-Departmental Funds) to cover the position increase. This funding mechanism debate resulted in a split vote, indicating significant division among council members regarding the appropriate budgetary approach for this personnel expense. **Sustainability Coordinator Position** A second contentious issue involved the creation and funding of a new Sustainability Coordinator position. Council members were divided on multiple aspects of this proposal, including whether the position was necessary and, if approved, what funding source should be used to support it. The debate encompassed both the merits of establishing this new role within the city's organizational structure and the financial implications of adding another staff position. Like the Citizen's Advocate funding issue, this item also resulted in a split vote, demonstrating the council's lack of consensus on expanding environmental sustainability staffing. Both contested items reflect broader tensions within the council regarding personnel decisions and budgetary priorities. The split votes on these matters suggest fundamental disagreements among members about staffing needs, funding mechanisms, and potentially the city's priorities in areas of citizen advocacy and environmental sustainability initiatives. *Note: Specific vote tallies, individual council member positions, and transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## General Government Link Report [timestamp: 00:10:00] Councilmember McCurn presented the General Government Link Report during the May 25, 2021 meeting. The presentation focused on the committee's review of the Mayor's proposed budget for various municipal offices and departments. McCurn recommended that the council accept the Mayor's proposed budget allocations for the offices under the General Government Link's purview. The presentation covered budget recommendations for multiple city departments and administrative functions. A significant portion of the discussion centered on the Citizen's Advocate position. McCurn addressed questions and provided details about this role within the city's organizational structure, though specific details about the position's responsibilities or budget allocation were not elaborated upon in the available materials. The General Government Link Report served as an informational presentation to update the council on the committee's budget review process and recommendations. As a link committee report, this agenda item was designed to facilitate communication between the specialized committee and the full council regarding budgetary matters under their jurisdiction. The presentation concluded with McCurn's formal recommendation for the council to accept the Mayor's proposed budget for the offices reviewed by the General Government Link committee. No formal vote or action was taken during this agenda item, as it was structured as an informational report to keep council members informed of the committee's work and recommendations. ## Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Link Report [timestamp: 01:00:00] Councilmember Worley presented the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Link Report during the May 25, 2021 meeting. The presentation focused on current budget changes and departmental staffing needs. During the report, Councilmember Worley highlighted various budget modifications and provided updates on the city's financial status. A key recommendation emerged from the presentation regarding staffing in the Planning Department. Councilmember Worley specifically recommended the addition of an Administrative Officer position within the Planning Department. This staffing proposal was presented as part of the broader budget considerations and departmental needs assessment. The report served an informational purpose, providing council members and the public with updates on the city's budget status and related economic development matters. No formal action was taken on the recommendations during this presentation, as the item was structured as a reporting mechanism rather than a decision-making agenda item. The link report format allows for coordination between the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development functions, ensuring that council members receive comprehensive updates on interconnected financial and development issues affecting the city. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (10-2): Increase the Citizen's Advocate position from 20 to 25 hours - **Motion** — passed (8-4): Add a Sustainability Coordinator position --- ## Full transcript Good job. Alright, we are going to do one more fast one. This is in the summertime. So we're going to start, sitting up nice and tall, of course. And we're going to have out to the side. Okay? And then we're going to do single, single, double. Single, single, double. Scratch that. We're not doing out to the side, okay? We're going to do single, single, double, and single, single, double. Start out. And then we're going to reach across. Reach in. It's a little bit slower movement there. Okay? Then we're going to have knees. Single, single, double. Again, another opportunity to lift those legs off the chair. Okay? Single, single, double. And our arms. Single, single, double. single, single, double. Now you can make it easy and just move your arms side to side or you can pull, pull, squeeze those shoulder blades in the back. Okay, but the pattern is single, single, double. All right, here we go. In the summertime. We're going single, single, double with the heels. Same arm, same leg. Push in front. Ready, here we go. Single, single, double. And single, single, double. Keep going. Reach across, reach. Together, reach. Really reach it out. Reach it. Keep breathing. Stretch that arm and leg. All right, knees, here we go. Single, single, double. Push the arms down. Get your knees up. Keep that muscle good. Arms, here we go. Single, single, double. Single, double. Keep going. Back to knees, here we go. single single double push the dance up lift it up your top your knees and abs push the heel single single double we love everybody fucking doing it push strong legs strong legs that's all you're asking reach across Really stretching out Arm and leg Push strong legs Strong legs Doing really great Keep going Lift the knees, here we go Single, single, double And single, single, double One more Okay Then on your arms Keep going. Three, two, one. Good job. Back to the knees. Lift good. Lift. Lift. Good arm and lift. Push forward. Single, single, double. Single, single, double. Single, single, double. Put your cross. Stretch it. Good job. You're looking awesome. Back to knees. Come on. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Welcome. Continuation of the Committee of the Whole for the Fiscal Year 22 budget. Welcome back to everybody. I think we're ready to get started. And unless anybody has anything, any pending business, I believe what we're down to is the general government link. And that would be, I believe, Council Member McCurran. Good morning. All right. Can I get the presentation? You're up. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, we are going to report out from the general government of fiscal year 22, a link report today. Before we begin, I would like to take this opportunity and thank Council Member Maloney for being on this link and Council Member Sheehan and our Council Legislative aides. They were a crucial role in helping us get this presentation put together and helping us throughout our link process. I'd also like to thank our council staff for answering questions and the administration too. To get started here on our presentation, a few of the links, the agenda that we went through. We had constitutional offices, council clerk, our council office, information and technology, internal audit, law, the mayor's office, and the human rights commission. In a brief general overview before we get started here of the general fund, we are at a 5% increase from the year from last year. To begin, who's controlling the slides here? If we can go to the circuit court, or circuit judge and friends of the court, please. One more. Thank you, sir. Circuit judges and friends of the court, our link proposes that we accept the mayor's proposed budget. Then I move to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. We also recommend that we accept the mayor's proposed budget, but on this, We do want to note that over the years their budget has been decreasing. This year in their operating costs it has gone up roughly 3%. And I do anticipate that in the years to come they will be asking for a further position. But we do recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. For the coroner's office, the coroner had requested in capital funds of $50,000 for a new truck. We are going to recommend that we accept the mayor's proposed budget, but with the highlights of this, cases are currently up in Lexington, and they have been for quite some time, especially because of COVID this past year. So they may need to request more money in the future and to anticipate that as we move forward. But we are going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. The county attorney, we are also going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget, but in highlights, they would like funds for employee raises, and this is something that they will also request in the future. They did note that they have never received a raise in their office, and I do believe that this is something that we'd like to see as well. The county clerk, we're going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget here. At the end of fiscal year 20, the board of election employee retired and that's what you see the 14% decrease in personnel is that employee retired. There is a county clerk position that was added, but it still decreased in their budget. County Judge Executive, we are going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. And the PVA. With the PVA, something to note that will come out from our link and the questionnaire was that they took a drastic hit this past year with COVID expenses. As I understand many of our constitutional offices have as well. But we would like to recommend out of our link that we look into the ARPA funds for potential reimbursement to some of our constitutional offices. No guarantees on it, but we would just like to have that conversation moving forward. But we are going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Council Clerk, we're going to recommend again accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Highlights on this, the operating costs have decreased for the council clerk, particularly for publishing, future funding for an online transitioning. And as amounts of records are transitioned to online access in the future, this would eventually involve budgeting for such platforms. We're going to recommend accepting mayor's proposed budget for that. Moving to the council office here. The response office is where we're going to get a little bit more into conversation and a recommendation from our link. So we're going to recommend out of our link to increase the citizens advocate position from 20 hours to 25 hours a week. And this is going to have a resulting increase of roughly $24,000 annually. That's including unemployment, that's including FICA, that's all the pension costs. With this position, why we're looking to move it from 20 to 25 hours is to help implement one of the recommendations from the Mayor's Commission on Racial Justice and Equality. I would like to turn it over to Councilmember Sheehan here to kind of discuss the position a little bit more. of the research that she's done into this thank you thank you council member mccurrin i have been working closely with a number of stakeholders to examine expanding the role of our citizens advocate position to include components of the citizens liaison position recommended by the mayor's commission of racial justice and equality this would include then this expanded role it would include assisting the public when filing complaints both formal and informal with the Lexington Police Department. This has really been a very collaborative process. After seeking guidance from our law department to see if this was possible over a month ago, I talked with Tyler Scott, our Chief of Staff in the Mayor's Office. I talked with Councilmember Brown, who's the Chair of our Planning and Public Safety Committee, my Budget Link, other Council members. And then I began meeting with Amber Dietz, our current citizens advocate, about assuming these new roles and responsibilities. She is here to answer questions for us if we have any. As an attorney by trade and dedicated public servant, she has provided keen insight and raised valuable questions during our conversations. She and I both wanted to ensure that the city would be acting within the law and that we would be providing an honest representation of what this new role would do in assisting the public. We then met with Chief Weathers, Assistant Chief Holland, Assistant Chief Brian Maynard, Commander Bacon, who is also here to answer questions today, Commander Schnelle, and our LFUCG attorney, Keith Horn. We further discussed the matter. There was broad support expressed at that meeting, and during our conversation with the police department, we learned that only six external formal complaints were filed within 2020. So it's unclear what the impact of having this independent reporting place for the public would do if it would increase the number of complaints that would come forward. So right now we are trying to be a little bit conservative in the hours and only recommending this 25-hour position at this point to give a trial period to see what changes might happen. In her expanded role, Ms. Dietz and any citizen's advocate who follows her would be involved only with the intake of information. Investigations of all complaints would still be conducted by the Lexington Police Department. The citizen's advocate could keep detailed records, explain the process to residents as an independent and neutral arbiter, assist a complainant with supporting documentation, and be available to physically walk over a complainant to the police station in order to file their formal paperwork with the public integrity unit. She could also provide us with regular updates. She would not be, or our citizen's advocate office, I'm saying she because we currently have Amber in that role, she would not be in a position to give legal advice to a complainant, nor will she participate in the investigation of the complaint. For that to happen, changes would have to occur at the state level. I have much confidence in Ms. Deet's ability to assume these responsibilities and to assist our neighbors in this process. Entrusting the citizen's advocate with these new duties will positively impact residents across all of our districts and increase transparency in the process. Our legal department, our police department, Ms. Dietz and I all agree that this is a step that we can all take together. We as a council have had conversations that many of the recommendations coming out of the racial justice and equality commission report were ones that we don't have direct control over, that would require Fayette County Public Schools support or require changes at the state level. This is a small change that we can make that we do have direct control over. I know there might be some concerns as well about this being an ongoing expense. That is why we are starting at a smaller level of hours. While we can work towards building this up if that is needed, so we're starting with that 25-hour change, we can reassess at six months. And also, just as a reminder, this citizen's advocate position used to be a full-time position, but was cut back in hours based on budget cuts. I look forward to our discussion today with you all. I hope I can have your support to enact this common-sense change. Thank you. I'm going to turn it back over to Council Member McCart. Thank you, Council Member. I'd like to thank Council Member Sheehan for her work on this. and working with not just the police department and our citizen's advocate, but everyone that's been involved. And I'd like to also thank our citizen's advocate as well for her willingness to be here today and to step up in this time. With that, before we get into a motion, I'd like to recommend or point out where the funding source would come from for this $24,000 annually. Our link would like to recommend that each one of our council offices takes a $1,600 decrease in our NDF funds I understand that our NDF funds are designed to go towards our neighborhoods and help out for the public. But I do feel that this is a very important position and the sacrifice from our offices would show that we all feel as a council that this position is important as well. So with that being said, I'd like to make a motion for the increase of the citizens advocate position from 20 to 25 hours and an increase of $24,000 annually and a decrease from $1,600 per council office. So move. Second. I have a motion and I have a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I too want to commend Council Member Sheehan for bringing this up. I did have some questions. And the part of my concern is we don't want to get post-holt to citizens. but I think it's a tool that will help us if it is needed that if we go to Frankfurt we were able to show real numbers on how important this is and down the road we'll put recommendation from the citizen advocate in our law department if we were to draft language to go to Frankfurt to show how important this is. which I hope it doesn't have to go there, but if it does, we can, and I commend my citizen advocate who I think is very qualified for this. The reason we came in with the money, where we came from, is you all remember we had $30,000 we set aside for the council for the last five years for legal, outside legal. We have not used any of it this year. We took the $30,000 and put it back into the council, gave $7,500 to parks, and then put back in for the NDF for you all to have additional money. I want to put it back out to what we were all used to what we had with the NDF. This is very important, and I don't want to go into stabilization money. This is something I'm going to spend that I think we can do, and it does represent every district. and to me this is very important that we put we're really not doing anything taking your money out that we've done for the last five six years we're just taking this year that was unique we thought that we didn't need it but we'll put it back into what used to be 30,000 for legal we'll put it back in for the salary for so that's why we come to this recommendation so I support this motion thank you thank you council member Bledsoe thank you and I appreciate moving this forward. The citizens advocate has played different roles at different times based on the different needs of our community over the last however long we've had one. And so I think looking at this differently and recognizing that there's different opportunities for the citizens advocate role to play I think is an important one. And I think we're taking very measured steps to make sure that we're addressing the need responsibly and being open to figure out how do we move forward with this without going full time first. I think that's also very responsible. With all due respect, I would rather take it out of budget stabilization, and here's why. More than ever, I feel like my neighborhoods are starting to ramp up and doing more work coming out of the pandemic, making more requests, looking for more events, and are making more requests for resources. So while I completely understand the rationale of taking the $30,000 to do that in this time, given that we have money in budget stabilization and the needs of the NDFs, I'd prefer to take it out of budget stabilization this year. And then honestly, next year when we come to budget time, if it does need to be full time, we'll have to look at it holistically differently anyway. So I would like to amend the motion to take it from budget stabilization. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to amend to take the funds from budget stabilization rather than from NDF discussion. I've got three or four people signed up. If you want to speak to the amendment, please raise your hand so I don't have to undo all the rest of this. Anybody wish to speak to the motion? the amendment. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Council Member Bledsoe, I do agree with you for the time. My neighborhood requests have increased, and I think they are going to get more active. There's more work to be done in our neighborhoods, so this time I believe budget stabilization would be the way to go. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Klover and then Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One of the things that I really liked about this proposal is that they had an ongoing funding source, since it was an employee increase, that they were going to, as my understanding was, look into using those funds normally allocated for the attorneys that we haven't used year over year to increase this going forward. I like that that was proposed. I don't have a huge objection to using one-time funds now, but specifically I want to make sure that when we look at this going forward, if we could also look towards these recurring funds that we can have these for these employee sources, I think that's going to be very important, and I think that that was one of my favorite parts of the proposal coming forward in the first place. Thank you. Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. No, I'll echo that same thing. My initial concern with it was wanting to see reoccurring expenses in a location where they come from. Even though this was going to be a potential decrease from our NDF account one time for this year, but moving it forward, it would be a request of a line item in the budget for the citizens advocate for that position and hopefully to reinstate the $1,600 for the NDF. Now, if there's the will of the council to go with the budget stabilization, that's fine, but I'd like to see this making sure this is a line item in particular so we're not continuing to hurt our bottom line in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. We need a vote electronically. Need two more votes. That motion passes. Now we're back to the motion as amended and I believe I had some people in line. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor and thank you, Council Member Sheehan and the Link for looking into this issue holistically. I think it was Chief of Staff Tyler Scott that actually encouraged us to take a look at this recommendation and move it forward. And I appreciate the link doing that in a more expedient way than putting it in committee and letting it run its course. I think I do understand the sentiment of taking it out of Council NDF funds. But just like Councilmember Bledsoe and Councilmember Plowman stated, our neighborhoods are getting active. A lot of our nonprofits and other community partners are as well. And I think these funds are going to be more needed to go towards those initiatives going forward. So I completely support this proposal, but do think that taking it out of budget stabilization is the best move going forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Bledsoe, for that amendment. Our current, as you said, the citizen's advocate has had a lot of different roles and jobs throughout the years. And I think our current citizen's advocate is particularly capable of handling this. A former 7th District Council aide, a 7th District constituent. But she does a great job in what she does. And she would be able to handle whatever new roles and capacities we put in that job. That being said, when we talk about the difference between one-time funds and recurring expenses and all that, I think we get in our heads about what budget stabilization is because the way we've used it over the past few years. But the way I see my NDF funds are certainly recurring expenses. That $1,600 number, I know for a fact that the 16-District PTA has asked for that to help students that couldn't go on the annual D.C. trip every year. There are neighborhoods who have asked for that same amount for mulch and playground projects every year. So NDF to me is a recurring expense that needs to be funded recurringly. And I don't think I'll probably ever agree to take neighborhood money. But I think that what you all are doing here and the idea behind this is laudable. I appreciate it and I support it. So I guess I don't need to speak too much on something that's already been decided. but that's all I have. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I'm going to support the motion because I think it's very important, but I want everybody to understand that this money that we get, the NDF money, which this year came to get into us. It wasn't like it's been going on every year. So the message that I was going to send to the task force, we think that it's very important. We have found permanent money that was ongoing. We took it from the department that was an ongoing money. To me, you're putting in a stabilization. I don't think we're putting enough teeth to show how important this is. That's to me. The more we get solid to send to the task force that we're taking money from somewhere that used to be there and putting it in there and how important it is, I like that message better than us sitting here using that everybody, because some people think this money has been coming every year. It has not. It is the first year the money has come to us. I'm more concerned about the task force. I think we're sending a strong message. We have permanent money going there that we didn't have. And to me, I'm going to support this, how important it is. But I just want to understand the difference between NDF and a permit for the task force. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one quick clarification to any of the members of that link. The reason that you targeted the NDF account was because the previous $30,000 for the attorneys had been moved into NDF this year as a one-time fee. So if the $30,000 was there, would you be suggesting that we take it from the external attorney fees for the council? I believe so, yes, sir. Okay, thank you. That's the clarification I wanted to make. So just to be clear, the request that I'm seeing here is not to take money from the neighborhood fund on a recurring basis, but instead to take money from a fund that we do not currently use much of, where we can hire outside counsel of that $30,000. I think that was the original intention. Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't mean to convolute the process too much here, but I will say that the initial $30,000 that we had from our legal position that we had set aside, we moved that back to the NDF funds, I believe, in fiscal year 20? Is that correct, or fiscal year 21? Was it last year that we did? Thank you. This current year. So fiscal year 21. We moved it back this year. But before that point, we had the funds in our account, but we took a 15% decrease back in fiscal year 20, I believe now. And so that was kind of to offset that decrease initially for our 15% cut. I hope that makes sense. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. So the motion as amended is now up for a vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, sir. A few more to run through here and to go over. The CIO, the Chief Information Officer, in her office, there was a personnel change this past year, or for this year coming forward, of an administrative officer was requested for $91,513.63 to come from the general fund. the general fund. This position will replace administrative officer senior position that is currently unfunded. And a few highlights for CIO is IT managed to deploy a full-time work from home infrastructure within the first few weeks of the pandemic. Then they had to procure laptops, cameras, mobile hotspots, microphones, and other equipment needed. It also meant that we had to ensure that there was enough internet capability or in capacity for the remote staff to conduct their work from home. One of the capital projects that they have is for phone upgrades of 374,996, as in bond funding that's in the mayor's proposed budget. And we will recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Moving to computer services, we kind of spoke about this a little bit yesterday with one of the vacant positions. some of the funding from that vacant position that was moving towards the administrative officer and the CIO's office. We are going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Enterprise solutions highlights IT business relationship manager position has been moved from the office of information technology. Personnel is now allocated across funds to match the PeopleSoft operating allocation and then migrated the PeopleSoft application to an updated Oracle Cloud infrastructure platform. We're going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Internal audit, they took a decrease of 7% of their operating this past year. We will also recommend accepting mayor's proposed budget for them. Law, there is a personnel change, an attorney, a senior position of $115,177.76. The funding source is coming from the property and property casualty claims, their self insurance fund, fund 6021. This position will allow the department to meet their increasing demand. We will recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget on that. Mayor's office, a few highlights for the mayor's office. A new position of administrative aid to mayor's senior position funded to the staff of the mayor's commission on racial justice and equality. funding provided for the Veterans Hall of Fame and also for the Pride Community Service Organization, increased focus on arts with funding for a public art master plan, lunch with the arts, and programming for the Town Branch Commons. We recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Human Rights Commission, I know all of us have received a few various emails and requests from the Human Rights Commission. They requested additional funding to our budget link that was for community relations coordinator, ADA violations, staff raises conversion therapy investigations, and a second investigator position. They are understaffed and they've made that point very clear to our link. Fiscal year 22 funding to come from the ARP is what we're going to look, We're going to recommend to this council that we consider funding the Human Rights Commission additionally out of the ARPA funds. Some of these are one time funds that they have requested, some of them have been reoccurring. Our link has made it very clear that we are not interested in reoccurring expenses at this time, but they have sent over additional capital projects that they're interested in as well. We would like to discuss that in the ARPA discussion. So we are going to recommend accepting the mayor's proposed budget. And that is it for me. Thank you, sir. Do we have any questions? Okay, I think next on the agenda is budget finance and economic development, Council Member Worley. I apologize, I did not see that you were signed in. I'm only looking ahead instead of where we are right now. So, Council Member Fred Brown. The one thing that stood out a little bit for me and maybe the links committee can answer that. is the request by the coroners for a additional vehicle, I believe. And the fact that they have increased, looking at the percentage of increase there. And I wondered what the discussion was and why you all didn't recommend it or why you turned it down. Because it would not be a reoccurring expense, it'd be more of a capital item. So if somebody could give me an explanation on that. Thank you, sir. No, I will yield to some of my colleagues on this one, the link. But I believe that we didn't propose the funding for this because we weren't one to take money from the budget stabilization process. I think we kind of showed that with the citizens advocate position. We were trying to be unique and make sure that we weren't taking any additional funds from that. I'd be happy to consider it. Okay. Further questions, Councilmember Brown? Councilmember Brown, is that... I'm sorry, were you done? Since I failed to recognize you, I don't want to cut you off. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. They were funded for their van. That's why we didn't ask for the money. The budget, it's in their budget. If you'd all like to have the administration come up and ask why they funded, that might be the question, but they got funded. That's why we didn't ask that question. We did fund in the mayor's budget. We did fund that van, and we funded their other item, which were stretchers that they needed. And they were, the van that they presently have is in good shape, but it did not fit their needs, so they're going to switch with us, and we're going to use that van somewhere else. So we did fund that. Thank you. Council Member McCurron. Thank you. C.O. Hamilton, thank you for that explanation. Council Member Brown, I'm sorry for the confusion. I was confusing the stretchers with the van. Thank you. Thank you. And now I believe we can move to budget finance and economic development. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had the pleasure to chair the Finance, Economic Development, and Planning Link. Thank Vice Mayor Kay, Council Member Lamb for working with me on that, particularly our aides, Jennifer, Kelly, and Renee, for all of their work. Thank you for the various different departments for your cooperation. The next slide, please, Chris. And I'm going to kind of go through this fairly quickly if you kind of keep up with me. We review the Chief Development Officer, which is Economic Development, Bluegrass Farm to Table, Industrial Authority, the Department of Finance, which is Commissioner of Finance, Accounting, Budgeting, Purchasing, Revenue, and the planning division. I just saw Director Duncan come in. Welcome. Thank you. So first, the Chief Development Officer, there are some budget highlights that we would like to bring forward to you that are in the Mayor's proposed budget of $500,000 for the jobs fund, which is transfer and pre-funded reallocation of fiscal year 21 funds, along with a $200,000 expenditure for workforce development grants, which will be funded by the ARPA. We thought we wanted to highlight both of those. We thought those will be valuable tools for the chief development officer. We'll be recommending the mayor's proposed budget approval for that. In the Finance Administration Office, a significant highlight is the slight increase in operating to cover the increase for association with bank fees. Other than that, pretty standard is what you've seen year to year, and we'll be recommending approval of the mayor's proposed budget. In the Division of Budgeting, a significant change in the mayor's proposed budget, which we agree with, is abolishing a previously frozen administrative specialist position and funding a new senior budget analyst. This is already allocated across funds, though there will be some difference in the job description there. We'll be recommending that. In the Division of Accounting, slight increase in professional services to cover the implementation of a new GASB lease standard. This is already in the Mayor's proposed budget, and we will be recommending approval. The Division of Revenue, we've got a little bit more here. So there's a slight increase in professional services to cover contractual increases. And then there's a previously frozen staff assistant senior position that is being filled in the mayor's proposed budget. We agree with those, but a particular highlight we want to point out to you is the $150,000 in the bond that's related to a federal tax information management system software. That software, we understand, allows our division of revenue to cross-check with businesses and individuals' federal tax returns to make sure that if they are claiming income for something that they did in Fayette County, that we can double-check and make sure that they bought a business license and have paid their occupational license fee and net profits tax here in Fayette County. So it allows for intergovernmental cooperation, and it's our understanding that we need to update our software pretty routinely. Some communities don't have as many needs as we do and ours are constantly changing and so we are constantly having to change that software. So that's in the mayor's proposed budget and we'll be recommending approval of the mayor's proposed budget and there's a committee referral item for the division of revenue that I'll get to shortly. Central purchasing, the major highlight is abolishment of a vacant staff assistant senior position. In the Division of Planning, there are not significant changes to the Mayor's proposed budget. However, I will point out that we are seeing quite a large savings in legal advertising. Because of a change in state law, you no longer have to advertise full agendas and full agenda, excuse me. And if you've ever seen a Planning Commission agenda, it's several pages long. And now you just have to advertise the items on the agenda. So there's a significant savings in legal notices. In the Division of Planning, though, we are going to be recommending a, I won't say a new staff position, but it will be reinstituting a staff position. If you'll remember, last year we abolished or did not fund, excuse me, a planning manager position in order to fund the director of revenue position. We thought last year that that was a better use of that money. The Division of Planning says that this has made it significantly more difficult for them to process and service, particularly the Board of Adjustment, but also processing development plans after the Planning Commission. I think we absolutely needed the Director of Revenue position last year, but this is something we took from planning, and they're asking for that back, but in a slightly different way. They would like us to down classify that position to an administrative officer position as opposed to a planning manager. And this will not only allow for this additional help within planning for those specific purposes of an administrative officer, but currently you have planning managers, and Director Duncan's here to answer any of these questions, you currently have planning managers that are having to do a lot more than the planning manager position. And it's taking away from the work that they need to do there. So this would allow to shore up some staffing issues. We're told we'll speed up the development process, particularly at the development plan approval stage. And we think that it's a valuable position. There is a detailed job description that Director Duncan gave us that is on page 100 of your packet. We think that it's a valuable position, and I would move to add that position and fund it. I had the amount in front of me. I believe it's 90, total package is 94,000. Let's see, where do I have it? It's 91,490. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So that's salary and benefits, total package. We would move to add and fund that position by downclassifying the planning manager position, pay for that with budget stabilization funds, so moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. discussion on the motion. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I'm going to ask that same question I ask every time. CO. Hamilton or someone, can someone get up with this discussion in the mayor's budget, this job? Was it ever discussed brought up in this job? This, like the previous These positions we've talked about was discussed in the mayor's budget. We did not fund it in the mayor's budget and that is not because we didn't value the position or recognize its importance. It's just we got to a particular level of personnel and that's where we stopped. And my next question is where are you all going to get the fund to do this again? Are you getting it from an old job and keeping it in the general funds or are you taking it out of stabilization? We'll need to take it out of budget stabilization because the planning manager position we are down classifying was unfunded in our budget last year in order to pay for the funding of the director of revenue. I'm going to be consistent here. I voted against the historical job. And I agree that they're all important. And I just have a concern that a message we're sending that we are bypassing, creating jobs that I think it should be done in the administration. I would not support taking the money out of stabilization. If it would come back with another tool that shows that you're keeping it in the data, the ongoing general funds, I would support it. But I think it's needed. I think there's a lot of jobs needed out there. Then they're going to open up a can of worms here. People are going to stay out of it. We can get to come and present our stuff to the council like some other people have. So I just want to say it be fair to everybody. So I can't support this one. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I told Director Duncan in the link that he was welcome to come and make his case for himself, if he would like. But I will say, and I appreciate a philosophical point of recurring funds and budget stabilization we believe in our mind is not recurring. But we have significantly cut our government down over the past few years. It looks like our revenues are going to support a slight increase. And I'll certainly say on behalf of the Division of Planning, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We've added every other position that's been requested by a link. And he believes that this one's valuable. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. And I want to echo what Council Member Worley said. and also to know that our Division of Planning has been operating on a lot of the comprehensive plan items at a pace as best they can. And we have a lot of recommendations that they're working on, along with a lot of the zoning cases they're working on, and they need this staff person. They need it to help to move things forward. You know, we're sitting here at this dais and we're talking about affordable housing. We're talking about ADUs. We're talking about all the issues that are in the community that are relevant to our community moving forward in so many different areas. And I think that's why this is so important that we allow this position to be created in this capacity so that the Division of Planning will have the proper staff to be able to function and to complete the tasks that we are and the community is asking them to complete. So I would appreciate everybody's support on this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. You're around here. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't have too much of a concern about the position, although I think it was properly looked at when the mayor looked at it, along with other positions. I do have a problem with taking it out of stabilization funds because of recurring. And I think it ought to come out of general fund because once you put it in there, it's going to come out of general fund next year and the year after and the year after because it's going to be a personnel cost. So why not just take it out of general fund to start with so that we're not making that discussion about being reoccurring, non-reoccurring? That's my position. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. So the answer to that is where would you like to take it from of the general fund? Because there's only a $15,000 balance right now in the general fund line item. That would be, I would think we have a projected fund balance. And I don't know where that money is sitting, but there's money sitting there somewhere because our revenues have come in. Now, whether it's in the cash balance or where it is, you can still take it out of fund balance. But maybe I'm getting the cart before the horse. Maybe we need to make an adjustment to the budget indicating that we're going to accept some fund balance monies in here to operate with. So I think that goes back to the framework conversation of the fund balance being projected. Meaning we know that it's there. There's a healthy amount there, but we don't know what the number actually will be. And so the reason that we were suggesting taking from budget stabilization now was so that when July 1st hit and the rest of POs go forward, we can move that fund balance back to budget stabilization as a replenishment. So that's an ongoing thing. when we know the fund balance, we can go in there and start adjusting some of these things that we've made adjustments. I would think so. Okay. If the council agrees to do that. Yeah, that makes me feel a whole lot better if we can do that. So, okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair, I'd like to address this issue. Go ahead. Thank you. So just to follow up on what Council Member Bledsoe just said, we tried at the beginning to talk about the framework for funding and the difference between arpa money and budget shortfall money and earned revenue and the wisdom of the council at that time was to leave a bunch of money in coming out of arpa and some coming out of out of budget shortfall which is basically pre-funding so i just like to make the point if we're talking about recurring expenses. If you look at the budget shortfall, the use of ARPA money, in there we have 127,500 for Lyric, 325 for LexArts, 300,000 for economic development, 170 for workforce development grants, the affordable, the homelessness allocation for $750,000. Those are all recurring expenses which we are paying now, we have decided, with one-time funds. So they're in that category, but they're not different than anything else that's a one-time or a recurring fund. And similarly, we're making up almost $8 million with the budget shortfall, which is a prediction of what we will have when we get to the fund balance. And in that, we have a streetlight transfer for $202 million. We have all of the ESR for $3.6. Those are things that I presume are recurring. Those are things that are going to fall back into our budget. Right now, they're in this bucket. And I don't want to relitigate the whole question of the framework, but essentially, it seems to me what we ought to be talking about is, do we want to fund this or not? But we also have in the earned revenue category, 30 new or expanded positions. So they happen to be put into earned revenue. They could just as easily have been put in one of these other buckets. And so I think we can talk about where the money is coming from and what the impact is. But to make a distinction between, right now, between the use of one time funds for ongoing purposes is a little bit, well, I'll say the words that not, the word that comes to mind, so I'll use it, is disingenuous. It seems to me it does not look at what we're really doing. And so in this particular case, I would say take it out of budget stabilization with the understanding So we're going to have to revisit a lot of these allocations and where the money comes from. Thank you. Mayor, Vice Mayor, you can have a bite. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. To your comments, and again, I thank you for framing the conversation. But I am constantly brought back to the very first number that we were presented with, with the budget, with our revenue versus our shortfall, that $20 million. And so I feel like it's a relevant conversation to have when talking about adding additional expenses like personnel that are recurring, that even though we have one-time funds right now and we are using them, and there could be a debate or a question over whether that should be the course forward, I think that each of these positions we need to keep in mind that that top line number isn't changing, and we still have that $20 million deficit going forward. So I wouldn't say it's disingenuous to continually discuss whether or not we want to incur more recurring costs when that, again, that top line isn't changing in our one-time funds discussion. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yes, to add on to what the Vice Mayor had said there, I think it's kind of the, you know, in between the lines type of thing. I think most of us want to look at that. And perhaps I'd offer a suggestion that once we get through this length process and the budget process that the budget committee look at a list of items that have recurring items that have been put in the budget stabilization fund. Make that list and then let's address that maybe in a cow, a little bit more formal. And then we should know the information July or August. That would be my suggestion. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I want to echo what Councilmember Colbert said. I'm going back to the original. Before today started, before we had all this money, we were 20 something million dollars in the home. And I'm looking, being on this council so long, I look for the future now. I know we're at today. We see something we've never seen before in our life. A lot of money, one time money, and we're taking this one time money and going into ongoing expense. And for example, eight years ago, one of my colleagues, we had $600,000 worth of money, one time money, and we hired a bunch of firemen with it. And that got us in debt, it's ongoing expense, and I voted against that. And I think we're on the same pace right now, taking ongoing one time money, and we're going to come back to reality, folks. The dust is going to settle here in another two years. And I don't know, hopefully all of us are sitting up here or some of us won't be sitting up here. But I look for the future and where we're going to have, we're going to pay these bills. And if we continue to hire these people, that's why I keep it questioning. If you can be creative and use the general funds and move people around, if you haven't hired and you have money, I'm for that. But when you just create a position and you're using the stabilization money, and I want to thank one of my colleagues for bringing to my attention that we're using a lot of stabilization money for ongoing expenses like the stuff that we just talked about. I'm just, at the end of the day, we're going to get back to this 20, and if we keep adding these money on, it's going to be $30 million. And I don't mean to go back, but we had an $8 million surplus this year. Everybody's sitting there scratching their head. Where did it come from? We're right now in the middle of a pandemic. We have no idea where that $8 million comes from. And to me, we need to wait until this storm comes through because the economy is starting to turn around. And I hope it continues to get $8 million. But if it's what I think it was, people staying home and not going places, well, I hate to tell you folks, but I got everybody ready to go out and go to Florida, go anywhere they can in the next month or two. So I just think we need to be very careful, and that's why I'm very cautious. And I'm glad we got the money, but I think it would really be terrifying if we continue to go on. So that's why I can't support some of these things. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate the dialogue. I appreciate the conversation. But I also want to remind my colleagues that on Tuesday we sat here and we voted, and I don't know how many positions prior to this one that we vetted and approved. And if I remember correctly, I believe we've approved them unanimously. So I would, with all due respect, have asked for the same opportunity for this position as we did and dealt with on Tuesday. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. Councilman McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't believe the positions that were funded from Tuesday were all unanimous. I know I voted against them. I just wanted a clarification. I mean, I think there were multiple votes that were against those positions. Could you repeat that and get a little closer to the mic? It's hard to tell with my microphone. I know that several of us voted against some of those positions from Tuesday. I just wanted the clarification. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now I see nobody else signed up to speak. All those in motion on the floor is to add this position. we'll take an electronic vote. One more. That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. To finish the link recommendations, The last was a referral, which this is going to hopefully continue to become less and less necessary. But in talking to revenue, we have certain of our departments that were not able to go home when others went home because of security reasons and issues like that, particularly our Department of Revenue. They have to be there. And as people are coming back, as empty office spaces are being filled, social distancing and separation are going to continue to become an issue. So this is not just for revenue, but it raised the issue across government that we would be placing, when Vice Mayor puts all the recommendations into committee, into the general government committee, looking at proper social distancing in government offices. And hopefully that will continue to be less and less necessary, but at least in the interim it will be. So that concludes the report of this link, and I'm happy to answer any particular questions. But that is all for us, so thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Worley, for your presentation. I know back when the first proposed budget came out, one of the things that I was most interested in was the amounts given to economic development in general. And they took a pretty big hit last year, a very strong reduction due to budget cuts predicted last year. And so I was just interested, did your link look at maybe considering an increase of budget to those economic development partners, or would you be open to that consideration today? Thank you, Council Member. We did not look at an increase because it was not asked for, but, and I can't speak for all of the link members, I personally would be open to that discussion. I'm always in support of additional economic development money. I think the chief development officer was happy with the mayor's proposed budget, but I assume that his office, if it had more resources, he would take it. So if you have a suggestion or a discussion you'd like to have, I'm open to it. Council Member Bloodsoe, do you want to hear other discussion? Okay, thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Division of Revenue, there's a capital projects, federal tax information management system software, $150,000. I take issue of bringing it out of the bond fund. If I'm not mistaken. I'm sorry, Councilmember, if we could stay on the issue that's been raised. Is this the same? This is his links. It is, but a question has been raised about a particular additional discussion on one item. Is this the same? No, it's not the same item. Okay, I'd just like to, if we can. Come back to me. Come back to that, if that's okay. Council Member Maloney, are you on Council Member Bledsoe's comment? On the same issue, and I agree with Council Member Bledsoe. If we look at the AARP money coming in, I'm telling you, that's where the money needs to go first. And I know, Kevin, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but that, to me, the quicker we get that money to you guys and get that money turned around, That $20 million that I'm worried about, the more we put a dent into that when we come out of this storm that we're hitting in the next two or three years, that we try to be proactive and try to put a dent into that $20 million that we're all worried about. And to me, that's the only place that I can think of that's going to have a huge impact quickly. So I agree. I don't know where, when we, I assume I would rather, when we just talk about the ARP, that's when i recommend that we add additional funds but i want you to know i do support what you're saying there and i think you're right but it needs more money thank you um anybody else on this same topic council member james brown thank you vice mayor thank you council member blutzo for bringing that up i i think i think that is a worthy uh conversation for us to have and to consider uh maybe even with with the ARP funds, if it's gonna go towards workforce development and economic development, as we are working to still come out of this pandemic and get folks trained and back into the workforce. And in regards to the workforce development grants, those go to or awarded to a lot of our nonprofit partnerships, a lot of area census tracts in this city where employment, we have low unemployment numbers. So I would support potentially doubling or maybe even more than that, putting money towards that initiative. And I think if it's eligible through the ARP funds, maybe we should consider doing that. So I would entertain a motion. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you for the conversation. So I'm going to make an argument just for the argument's sake and then see how you all think about that. So my thinking here is that the larger workforce development issue is something we've talked about individually and somewhat collectively moving forward as a need in our community, and I completely concur. So I'm supportive of all that. I'm also supportive of more of the immediate situation of getting existing businesses continue to grow, continue to get workforce, continue to get people working right now. So I would love to use ARP to a certain extent to use that, although I'm not sure we have a plan quite quickly enough to get that executed. So I guess my thought would be to use, so in the suggestion of doubling it from $300,000 to add an additional $300,000 out of budget stabilization now, to give it to the chief development officer to put together a plan immediately to get that money out for that specific option, while we consider the larger conversation about workforce development in general. That's kind of where I'm landing on this. And I'm open to the conversation of that funding source changing as we move forward. But my immediate thought is we have a workforce problem right now. How do we help it immediately and how do we help it long term? So for fun, I'm going to make the motion. And I would suggest taking, I move to take $300,000 out of budget stabilization and place it into the chief development officer's budget for a plan to return to us on using that for existing businesses' workforce development support. Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on this motion? Yeah, let me take hands. Council Member Reynolds and then Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could I have Kevin come up and may I ask you a question? How specifically would this extra money be used in a quick amount of time? Well, it just got brought up, so I'm going to give you as many specifics as I can think of often. And I think we do a really good job, as Council Member Brown said, working with a lot of our nonprofits and others on workforce development. And I think Elodie is at a point where that grant fund has gone down about $100,000 since it was started. But I think we're, you know, a little more, we could do some things. But I think she's pretty comfortable. I think what, if you were asking me today, I think I would really focus in on now transferring maybe some of that. In the last year, we've started a new way we do existing business visits, and COVID's helped that in some ways because they had to all be on Zoom, so the participation has been great. But one of the things our existing businesses here today talk a lot about is workforce needs. And I think if we really drilled in and it came up, if you wanted something new, a specific program, and we could work with our partners who handle that at Commerce Lexington to come up with something that is very specifically oriented to the businesses that are here today. So they can, if you look at economic numbers across the country, 80% of job growth comes from businesses that are already here. So if we address that and we're helping those companies continue to grow, you know, it could be companies like Amazon, and we've just all seen that of late, but there have been others here that continue to grow. If we really focus in with that teamwork effort, I think maybe we could create something that is worthy of what the council is going toward. Meaning a program or something that would help them out? help, especially as they come out of this last year that we've all had to endure. Okay. Thank you. And Council Member Bledsoe, was your intention that this be one time for this year, correct, not ongoing double of the budget? So my personal feeling is that there's no guarantee money any year, any next year. I just feel that way. There is no guarantee. The council itself and the administration decide how to spend that money every year. In some years, we take money from other pots and put it over here. In other years, we take them over here and put it over here. That's the beauty of the council. So I would argue this particular year, this is the current need. And I think next year, we'll have to re-decide if that still is the need or if there's other needs in our community. That's why it's one time for me, because I think it's specific to a current situation that we have today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support this because I do feel like that it is in the right movement for our community, especially right now. I do think that we have an opportunity to use these funds to help our business community and hold them up. I've done the math on my paper here, but I would like to ask the council administrator, the new figure that we're talking about now with the budget stabilization? Sorry, I have to see. We are at 19,836,725. That's why I asked because I didn't have it right. 19. Not including this. If this is approved. Sorry. If this is approved. Is that what you have? Yeah. Did you take this out? Okay, so 20,136,725? Yeah. Okay, that's what I had. I had this one in there. Yes. Okay. 20,136,725. Okay, thanks. I just wanted to make sure. Sorry, could you repeat that number? Without this 300,000, we have 20,136,725. Thank you. That's, and I appreciate that because I want to make sure that I'm keeping my eye on 11.4 and that budget stabilization that I don't want us to go underneath that. And I realize that 300 is a significant amount, but I think it will go to good use, and I appreciate this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Kevin, for adding some context to that. I would just encourage to still see if there's opportunity to work with Elodie's program, And I don't know if that's, you know, whether building capacity, because I know some of the agencies had some constraints or limitations in regards to reporting and following those employees that went through that program. But I do see a lot of opportunity there. But I think you make a lot of sense and made some great points about the current job growth related to businesses that exist. So I'd be interested in seeing what proposal you all may break forward. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak on this motion. The motion on the floor is for $300,000 out of budget stabilization. All those in favor, let's take an electronic vote again. I need two more votes. Thank you, that vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Council member Fred Brown. Yeah, back to the links report, the division of revenue. Just wanted to remind everyone that when we look at capital items and how we fund them through the bond fund, we always need to look at the life of particular items. This software, I don't think it has any life beyond three or four years. That's my personal opinion on it. And I don't think it should come out of the bond fund. I think it's non-reoccurring. So I think it should come out of the budget stabilization fund. But I don't know how to catch that other than when we talk about additional information about items on the budget stabilization plan. We could also add some things rather than delete some things when we're looking at the fund balance. So I just wanted to make that information as far as I'm concerned. I just don't see that being a bond fund item because it's not a long time depreciable item. And that's kind of been the history of what we do with bonding. And there's going to be some other bonding items that I think we can do out of fund balance. And if Commissioner CAO Hamilton would just speak to the fact that we had some bond funds that were small amounts, that we probably ought to look at those on trying to take them out of the bond fund and pay cash for them. Do you want to comment on that any further? because that had kind of been the discussion throughout our links program, I think. So as far as the bond package, when we put that together, the software would not be listed as an individual item. It would probably be combined with other government efficiencies, and it would go with a group of items. But I do understand it is shorter in duration than typically the items that we would bond. we are proposing the bond list that is currently in the mayor's proposed budget if we get to the point in you know september october november where we have sufficient fund balance and we are returning that or having that as budget stabilization and the council chooses to remove items from the bond list and go ahead and pay for those items that is certainly at your discretion we typically would bond in the fall but based on the fluidity of our budget this year and the large number of opportunities and decisions that we have, we may look to have a later bond issue this year. Fine, and I just think, I just want the council to be mindful of that fact. I want to bring it up again if I have to, but when we're talking about our general fund balance, that we absolutely look into some of these smaller items that we're putting in bond funds, especially those that aren't long lasting. So I just want to make that discussion. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this report? Seeing none, I think that allows us to move to individual council member recommendations. And at the top of that list, Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My individual recommendation that I'm bringing forth today is the funding of the Lexington History Museum at $50,000. I will tell you from the onset that they did not ask for funding this past year. In previous years, they vacillated in funding from $40,000 to $60,000. At our recent General Government Social Services Standing Committee meeting, we did have the President of the Lexington History Museum join us, and I know several of you were enthused with some of the accomplishments and things that they will be doing as we're moving forward. Obviously, they have a new headquarters, so to speak, the Rankin Building, the oldest house in our city. They have launched a strategic plan. They have a capital campaign. But I think as we approach our 250 anniversary, that is quite a milestone that should be celebrated. And they are working on that framework and looking to bring that to us. So I would like to suggest that we do support that funding level. One of the things I also think is extremely important is we have historical relics of the past all over the city that are being stored in warehouses, multiple sites, and we need to update and upgrade their collection opportunities to bring this forward in an organized fashion back to our community for the 250th anniversary. So what I would do is I would ask our funding source and one of the things that has been done with this AARPA money is allocating under the following program areas, tourism support, assistance to nonprofits, and emergency response. Well, this definitely falls under tourism support and assistance to nonprofits. So therefore, I would ask your consideration and the approval of this funding of $50,000, it would reduce, I believe it's, let me see, I had the number there in front of me, but it would reduce, I believe, what's in the account at $225,000 to $175,000. I'd have to look at that. So with that, Mayor, can I make a motion? Okay. Colleagues, if you would approve the funding of the Lexington History Museum in the upcoming fiscal year at $50,000, coming from the ARPA fund. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Yes, Mayor. Council Member James Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support this motion. I would entertain, I'll ask Council Member Plotman if she would entertain a motion to amend to take it from budget stabilization. just so we can continue to have the ARP conversation. I think that's the direction that we've been going in and would do the same. So I'll make a motion to amend the original motion to take the funding from the budget stabilization account. Second. Motion to amend. Is there a second? I have a motion to amend and a second. Now will be a discussion on the motion as amended. If no one objects, I'll take people in the order that are already signed in to speak on the original motion. I have a point of order. I have a question. I'd make sure I understood the original motion before amended. Because our sheet says that this was going to be a reduction of a Treasury grant operating budget for PPE equipment. Is that ARPA? Is that the Treasury grant we're talking about? Just different wording there. Okay. Yes. And Council Member Brown, yes, I would be willing to move that. Thank you. Council Member Lamb? Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I do appreciate Council Member Plowman bringing this forward. I do think that our history museum and our history of our community is very important. And what we have, most cities of our size have significant history museums. And we have, for lack of a better word, we kicked ours down the road for a long time. and I want to be supportive of it. They have a facility. They have a house now. There's an opportunity. There's a future. I see it. They've got a lot of great plans, like Council Member Plowman said. They've introduced them and talked about them in General Government Social Services Committee, and I think that we need to hold them up, and I think that we need to continue supporting them, and I hope that my colleagues will support this. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I will say that I do also support this. The History Museum, there have been years in the past that by no fault of their own, and there could be some criticism thrown their way, but by no fault of their own, they've been homeless. They have cared for exhibits all over town trying to stay afloat and trying to keep telling our story. And I think it's important to invest a little bit in our history. And in a couple of past budgets, there have been several museums that we looked to cut just because we couldn't fund. And it looks like we can now. And they do have a strategic initiative that I think we should support. So thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. So all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. I think we need a vote. On the amendment, just to be sure. That vote reflects passage of the amendment. Now we're on to the underlying motion as amended. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll take an electronic vote again. Please vote electronically. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. Thank you. Next is an item that I am proposing, so Councilman Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair. Councilmember Maloney, I'm sorry. Would you mind taking the chair? This is my... Vice Mayor. Thank you. So, this is an item that I believe is long overdue, but I want to talk a little bit about the background and why I'm bringing it forward at this time. So I think most people saw and heard the recommendation from the Environmental Commission, and I think they made the case not only that we need to take action on the questions of the environment and sustainability, but that that action is long overdue. At one point, there was an ad hoc group that met that developed the Empower Lexington Plan, and it was actually staffed by two people in environmental quality. They were not full-time, but that was a part of their obligation. One of them retired and was not replaced. One of them was moved to a position elsewhere in government, and the staff support for that effort basically went away. This council, not this council, but the council at the time, 2012, approved the Empower Lexington Plan, which was very ambitious in the way in which it thought about all of the ways in which this community together could work on sustainability, essentially, that's never been implemented. So if you were to go into your phone at the moment and Google sustainability coordinator in municipalities, you're going to get hundreds and hundreds of references. So two of them kind of caught my attention. One of them is a town in Maine outside of Portland. I happen to be familiar with it because I went to school in Maine, Falmouth, Maine. My guess is maybe 25,000 people. It has a sustainability office. And the other one that caught my attention was Lafayette, Louisiana, way down in a whole different part of the world. And one of my sons lived there for a year. I'm a little bit familiar with it. But again, a municipality outside of New Orleans, they have a sustainability office. And we know that both the other two legs of the so-called Golden Triangle, Louisville and Cincinnati, both have robust efforts and staffing for those positions. So internally, as far as LFUCG is concerned, James Bush has done a really good job and has made a difference in how we save money and are more environmentally responsible. But there's no comparable effort to support similar efforts in the community. So this position, there's plenty for someone in that position to do. The things that I would highlight focus on education, encouragement, and support for cost-effective sustainability efforts in the business community, support for energy efficiency improvements to aid in stabilizing low-income homeowners, partnering with Bluegrass, Green Source and other nonprofits already working on some of these issues, seek grant funding, and I would pause there to say there is a lot out there and there's going to be a lot more. I think there's an understanding that a lot of the infrastructure money is going going to be focused on sustainability efforts. It also ties in, in my mind, to recommendations that we've had from the mayor's commission on racial justice and equality. So a lot of what we can do in terms of sustainability would be to support people in the low income community who do not have the resources to retrofit, to take advantage of existing technology. I would add just one other thing, and that is that this is an office that has not only a built in constituency, but a constituency that's been essentially asking for support and guidance for years. So I believe it's a small investment in the future with a significant potential for return on investment. So my motion is to take, let me get the full number here. This position fully loaded would be $91,500. I propose to take that money out of the budget stabilization fund, so move. Second. Okay, we have a second. Anybody have a discussion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor, is this something that came from the environmental quality or environmental services, or is this something that you have brought forward? I'm just curious about how it is brought up. I think it's a wonderful concept, but I'd just like to be curious about that part of the history of it. So this came in direct response to a recommendation from the Environmental Commission when they made their report. And again, it's not a new concept. It's something that I've been, I guess, the way to characterize it is waiting for the right moment. The Environmental Commission was supposed to do, to make a report to the Environmental Quality and Public Safety Committee in, starting in February, there was a conflict. Then there were further conflicts. So they ended up not making their recommendation until just a couple weeks ago. So I did not want to get in front of that, but I've been working with them, and I've been working with the group that has been trying to reinvigorate the Empower Lexington plan. So I did not propose it earlier. I wanted to see what they were going to say to the committee. And if I may, and if you said this earlier, I'm sorry I missed it, but would this position be in environmental services? Would that be where it would be housed? And environmental services. Okay. And I've talked to the commissioner, and she believes that that's the appropriate place for it. All right. Well, thank you for that information. Thank you. Councilman Cheehan. Thank you. For many of the reasons that Vice Mayor Kay has spoken of, I would also like to speak in support of this motion. We did have the EmpowerLex plan that was adopted in 2012, and that needs to be updated to our current times. This would allow us to adopt policies similar to communities of our size. And it would allow us to work to achieve measurable goals and sustainability that are much needed in our community. So I will support this motion. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay, for bringing this forward. I believe that funding this position is essential at this moment. I think that if we value sustainability, financial and environmental, and we want our government to indicate and reflect as much to our community, that it is time for us to begin to lead in this regard. So I also know that environmental justice is intersectional with other forms of justice. And funding this position would allow us to indicate that we value sustainability, that we have a point person for these issues, and that we want to both create more impact and measure that impact. So I'm very much in support of this motion and I'm grateful that we have the opportunity to vote today. Thank you. Council Member Kern. Thank you Council Member Maloney. Sorry, I couldn't get my mic to work there. I'm not opposed to the position. I think that this is a good option to have. But I would like to see this position further vetted and a little bit more in communication. So I would like to make a motion to amend and refer this to the Environmental Quality Committee. So move. Second. We have a second. We have a discussion on that amendment. None. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, no, no. Okay, we need a hand. I need a vote on that. I can't count that high. On the amendment? On the amendment. I didn't count. Did that pass? Oh, I'll go up there. It did not pass. Okay, that did not pass. With that being said, thank you. I'm not going to be able to be in support of this at this time. Thank you. Okay, I need to get back on my screen. There, no one else. I do have a question. My question is, where are we funding it? Are we putting it out of stabilization again? Are we doing that kind of thing? Budget stabilization for the moment, as with a number of other positions. Okay, my question is, since this- I guess I need to take over the- I think I need to take over the Chair. Do you want to share now since you want to- Okay. Council Member Maloney. Welcome to have it, my friend. Thank you, Chuck, I appreciate it. My question is, and I think out of the box, why is this money not coming out of the solid waste 115 fund? Because this is environmental trash and all that, and be creative. I think to me, we should be taking money out of somewhere. I don't want to take money out of general funds, but I mean, that's a question I'm going to ask. Do we, could this be, I know we have some money in solid waste and some money in water quality, which I think both of these could fit because we're getting a lot of plastic in the storm water. We have to clean it out, and we get a lot of plastic in the solid waste, which the majority of it is. And I'm just wondering how we can mix those two together and use some of the money for that. Council member Maloney, I don't know the answer to that question. Let me tell you what I do on these kind of things. Because it becomes, law is so very careful because of fees that we charge, that I always have to go back with the job description to see exactly what the job is and then have law tell me if they think it can be taken from other avenues besides general funds. Okay, well, Vice Mayor, I support your idea. I just think the money, I feel it comes out of those departments. So I would not support taking any money out of stabilization, but I think to me there is another opportunity and I would have law or someone else look into that. But I think Vice Mayor would like to answer. Yeah, just for clarification, if it's determined that some or all of that money can be taken out of other funds where there's more available, then we can make that change as a budget amendment. I think the question is the position and the funding, we can figure that out. But that's the motion at the moment. Is that all Mr. Maloney? Yeah, thank you. And I'll pass the gavel back to you. I'll pass it back to him. You got a vote back. I thought, I thought. Council member Lamb is also. I'm sorry, let's go ahead. Council member Lamb, I'm sorry. Thank you. So I am looking at the description here and it regards the sustainability coordinator, grade 523. So, Vice Mayor, have you all created a job? Has it gone through a JAQ? What we've done is checked with Human Resources to understand what the position should be and what the salary range is. And this is, as always, an estimate of what it would take to hire someone in that position. Okay, so I guess we don't have a JAQ yet job analysis questionnaire. Has it been performed on this through Human Resources yet? No, it has not. Okay, well, I appreciate that because I think that is necessary in order for Ms. Hamilton to be able to check about the possible funding of this. So I think that I want to support this, and I do support it, but I also understand we have a process to follow. And I think that if there was some certainty that this could be vetted in the proper process so we know what funding it needs to be, so I might even have to go back to supporting, even though I didn't, putting it into committee. if we can, if the chair would be willing to hear it sooner than later and not let it just sit in there. So... Yeah, I guess you do that. If you don't, you can say, do it not consider early or later. Point of order. That's the comment. May I respond? The decorum is that we as chairs of our committees have opportunities to put things on agendas and not. And I'm asking if you would consider to put it on the agenda earlier than not. And that's all. And don't take offense to that because we've said that to other committee chairs as well. So, and if I knew that it could be heard sooner in the committee, then I would support it going through that process so that we can have all of the information in front of us when we're making this very important and valuable decision. Thank you. So Council Member Brown, are you okay looking into that? I'll look at every issue and then I've got several things in the committee right now. I'm sorry, point of order. May I raise a point of order? I believe we took a vote on whether to put it into committee or not. Okay, I'm sorry. And we resolve that issue. That's not what's at issue on this amendment, on this proposal. Thank you. The reason why I brought that up, Vice Mayor, is because some of these council members may not vote on it. If they don't know if it's going to, since I brought the issue, the funding can be used for something else. that may make it seem more attractive. I'm going to vote against it. We're going to keep it in stabilization. Council Member Maloney, the vote to amend and place this in committee failed. So the vote we're considering right now is approving this item from budget stabilization. Unless someone brings up another motion to refer it to committee, we've already settled that. Council Member Brown, you're next, please. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. I'll support the motion. I think the point that Council Member Maloney made about potentially funding this out of other funds that are dedicated and relevant to this position I think was a good comment. And I think if we funded or approved this moving forward, I think we still have time and the flexibility to see if there's other funds that can pay for this position. So I'll support it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Council Member. We're talking about the budget right now and whether we want to create the position if we think it's valuable. That's the motion on the floor and that's the issue for the day. Now, whether the CAO and the HR department need to go through formal processes of creating this position, yes they do. But why would they do it if the position is not created by the council? It's not in the Mayor's proposed budget. If we want to discuss long term what this sustainability department or director should do, then we can discuss that in our committee structure. A lot of things that we can do, but as we've talked about for two days now of do we want the position or not? If so, let's establish it and fund it. Let's put it on a list of things that we decide. Is it better to be funded by ARPA money? Is it better to be funded by environmental money? Is it better to be studied further? But in the budgeting context, do we want the position or not? I personally think it's valuable. I'm willing to fund it out of budget stabilization at this point. Maybe we'll find some other money. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you. I think that this position is extremely valuable. I think all the positions we've talked about are valuable. I think that when we're sitting here and we're discussing the budget, I could add five positions I also think are valuable. But we have to have the discussion, and I'm sorry, in my opinion now, where is this money coming from? We're not talking about one-time money. We're talking about ongoing money. It's a little different when we're saying this year we're going to up economic development by $300,000. But when we're saying over $90,000 a year, do we want this position or not? I want the position. I don't think that right now, in this moment, we should start a new position with ongoing funding. We can have discussions about that and I'm happy to do that in the future. But I have to vote no because just ongoing positions, I'm not okay with that right now. Thank you. Any other questions? I see none. We'll go back to the motion. And the motion is, I believe, support the new position and- And fund it out of budget stabilization. That's the motion, 91-5. Okay, all those in favor, say. Voting. Oh, you'd rather have a vote on the, okay. Two, five, six, seven, seven, we've got one, two. That passed. Back to you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. And thank you for the support for that. Next is Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. After input from my community, I have two small budget requests, small being the key word there. I would like to have funds to install four solar powered flashing pedestrian crossing crosswalk signs to enhance pedestrian safety at two of my schools that are on major thoroughfares. That would be at Jesse Clark Middle School crosswalk on Clay's Mill Road and Wellington Elementary School on Keithshire. Both of those schools crosswalks do not have any type of of alarming signage as it is right now. And they both somewhat have blind approaches. So these flashing crosswalk signs, I think, would definitely enhance not only our pedestrians, but our crossing guards as well. So I move to fund four solar-powered pedestrian crossing signs at $14,000 out of our budget stabilization fund. I second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Baxter. I actually went to Jesse Clark as well, and that's been an issue for years, that those intersections there, and the safety, especially in Clay's Mill right now, is rather intense, so I'm supportive of the motion. And in general, I think we should look forward to having more of those options, honestly at more of our schools in general and maybe a committee idea moving forward is how do we better protect our kids moving around schools, intersections in general, moving forward all over the city. But I think that is definitely a necessary thing today, to be honest. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yes, I guess the only thing I would do is speak into the motion here of the both items I think that that Councilmember Baxter has in here. Generally speaking, if you just go to the commissioner, you can work these things out without having to put them into a committee like this. Now, you may not, but I've had the history and experience of being able to sit down with the CAO and the commissioner and finding money for these particular issues, especially when they're under 30 or $40,000. I just put that out as a memo, it doesn't mean that we can't fund it some way, but it gets them off the hook. Sometimes I don't want my commissioners to, I want to find out where that extra money is and it's there. Trust me. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. And I'll call a vote as a voice vote. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next item. Thank you. In addition, I am asking for five park benches to be installed at Siloto Park Walking Trail. Currently, that trail is 2.4 miles in length, and we only have six benches. So with my age demographics in my area, we have had significant feedback from the community that additional park benches would be helpful. So I move to fund five park benches at $10,000 out of budget stabilization. So I moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion. I see no one signed up to speak. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Next, Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My first budget request is for $30,000 from budget stabilization to pilot a more inclusive CSA program. Ashton is here with us today to answer any questions. I think the opportunity here is to expand the program to be more inclusive of different vendors that can provide produce to the current CSA program and to potentially expand it for more employees to be included in opportunities to participate. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve $30,000, be funded from budget stabilization to fund a more inclusive CSA program. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Brown, for this item. And I do think that that would be great. I guess I need to understand, and I believe I see, may I ask a question of how would this be utilized? And I know that I think that the government, is it $200 a person is a stipend or however you call it, allocation? How do you plan on using this? Thank you for the question. So currently the existing budget for the program is $30,000, which covers 150 employees to participate at that $200 voucher level. This additional funding would double the size of the program, so it would allow 300 employees to receive that $200 voucher as opposed to 150. And as Council Member Brown alluded to, we're kind of reevaluating the entire program. So with the additional funding, we're also expanding the number of farms that can participate in 2022. So the money is solely going to incentives for vouchers for employees. That's wonderful. And, I mean, I know I didn't participate last year, and I really missed it, and I'm participating this year, and I'm very, very grateful for it. So I wish more people could have the luxury of these fresh veggies. They're just delicious. So thank you, Council Member Brown. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Council Member Brown. I'm so glad you brought this forward. And I will just, as a footnote, wanted to let you know that I'm working with Rural Land Management Board and Council Member Brown to talk more about this, not just from the CSA standpoint, but from an umbrella of Rural Land Management Board, what we could be doing to be more inclusive in our relationships with all farmers and looking at some funding opportunities. So I just wanted to put that out there as well. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you. Ashton, can I ask you a few questions? First of all, I just want to say how much I've enjoyed the CSA program. This is my third year participating and I love it. I was wondering if some of this money, you were talking about it going to more vouchers, but would in getting more vouchers out, one, would you make sure that other employees that maybe haven't participated in the past try to work to market to them? Because I've heard some things like, you know, waste management and other employees haven't always known about the program or what was available to them. So that's one question. And then two, are you looking at expanding to other farmers that haven't had the opportunity to participate and that maybe don't have the same, I guess, regulations that the other ones, whether it be organic or whatever, to be more inclusive of local farmers? Yes. So thank you for the questions. So short answer is yes and yes. We are, the point about marketing to a broader swath of our employees has been discussed at length, and we are currently trying to figure out the best way to do that. Typically it's been email, we've done lunch and learns, we've done flyers at the benefit fair. We feel like we're trying, I felt like we've been doing it, trying to reach everybody, but we certainly can do a better job of marketing. And I think it's been this tugging, but we haven't had a huge budget, so I haven't wanted to spread the word too widely because we fill up every year. With this additional funding, I think we can spread the message more loudly. And if folks have suggestions for how to better market, certainly I'm working with the HR team and others to figure out the best way to communicate the different divisions within the city. So to your second point, yes, the intent of reevaluating the program this year, both from a funding perspective but also from a farm selection perspective, perspective, yes, we will be expanding the number of farms that could be options for employees for next year. So, yes, we are removing the organic certification requirement, although it certainly will still be available for employees that choose that, if that makes sense. Yeah, that's great. Thank you. I appreciate that. And Council Member Brown, this is a one-time expansion of the program, or are you thinking this is going to be an ongoing expense? I think that's up to how successful it's going to be. I think this is a one-time request for a pilot to see what the opportunities exist with alternate program, but it may potentially be a reoccurring cost, but we don't know that yet. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. Call a question. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Next item, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I will say that Vice Mayor Kay had been in conversations and part of that effort to expand the program. So give credit where credit is due. The next item that I would like the request of council to consider is to include in our bonding package a $750,000 infrastructure project on Shropshire Boulevard. Some of the council members that were here a couple years ago may remember that one of the budget requests coming out of our office was a request to do a study in the East End neighborhood based off of early childhood Head Start initiatives. We actually pulled that request because at that time we didn't feel that we were ready to move forward with the study. but over the last year and a half, our office has been working with Congressman Barr, Community Action Council, and the Housing Authority to talk about how land adjacent to William Wells Brown Elementary School could be redeveloped to provide housing and also an early childhood head start facility. It looks that what is in progress now, or in process now, as Congressman Barr has submitted to the Federal Appropriations Committee a request for funding to aid with community action with building a facility to provide early childhood head start for the families that surround the William Rose Brown Elementary School. What, in addition to the housing authority redeveloping some vacant land to build single-family houses, and the request of the city is to build a street and to put in the infrastructure to help this development move forward. So this request will help kickstart this project. I've talked to C.A.L. Hamilton. She's very well aware of this project and these efforts going forward. And I don't want to speak on behalf of the mayor, but I think she is supportive of this effort moving forward. And this would just, if we could approve this funding, I think this is one of the linchpins in getting this project to move forward. So with that, I would make a motion to approve increasing our bond package to $750,000, which a six-month debt service payment would be $42,000, and then the annual full-year debt service payment will be $42,375 in a full year would be $84,750. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion, Council Member Fred Brown. I guess I don't know how to address this, Council Member Brown. I think we all have projects in our district that we would like to fund through some areas. this infrastructure here, and I think you explained it, but it's going to be a street, a new street and whatever's needed for that, the sewer system and everything? Yes, sir, I think it's storm water, curves and streets. Yes. Would this not have been better put in committee, and at least in the MPO committee, to where we look at the infrastructure and we look at items. Because there is a number of projects throughout the city, I think, that would qualify just as well as this project. And I'm not saying this is not a good project at all. But I'm just saying that we've got, and I can name three of, we've got sidewalk projects that we would like to do. Wilson Downing is one that we haven't completed. Mount Tabor Road is another one that we haven't completed. Armstrong Mill Road is another one. And I'm sure other people in the district have projects of this magnitude to help their district. And I would just, I just think it needs to be discussed a little bit more. a lot about it because it's in your district and you followed it through. And if we do have some federal money coming through, it probably ought to, instead of being bonded, it ought to come through the ARP funding. I don't know if you looked at that, but it may qualify for ARP funding or any infrastructure money that we may get in the future. And I don't, you know, every project is needed and I don't undermine that. I just have a problem of the process of putting it through a link and putting it through without it being discussed a little bit further and get the information there. That's where I'm coming from. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Brown for bringing this forward. From what I heard from your presentation, I heard an aspect of that that sounded in community development, affordable housing, intergovernmental cooperation. I think all of the things that we would look to here. I think there are a lot of things that we'd like to pay for in the community, but there are some things that are paid for that just need to get built, and we need to get to that too. But we have to look. If this is our piece here and the housing authority is doing their piece, the federal government is doing their piece, I'll support it. I think this is the type of thing that kickstarts the developments that we need through the community. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I concur with everything that has been said so far, honestly. One, this is a really important project, and it does a lot of important things. I agree that sometimes we put forward big projects that we all have in our districts. I did one in 2014. That was in Beaumont. That was a really important project. And so there's a set precedent for what Councilman Brown is doing. And I'm supportive of it. My hesitancy is only that I think this would be a great use of the ARP money because of the population that's going to benefit, because of it being infrastructure, and because of the possibility. At the same time, I think it's important that we show some commitment to it since Congressman Barr is making his effort as well. So I'm going to make what I would consider a friendly amendment, and then you can decide if you think it is. And so I would move to amend the motion to consider this fund out of the ARP money first, and if it is not successful, out of budget stabilization. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the amendment? I'll need your, Councilman Maloney, are you on the amendment? I support Councilmember Blasso's motion. The reason why, this weekend, they're supposed to be putting another transportation bill through. They're fighting right now. They went from 2.3 trillion down to 1.9 trillion and the Republicans came back with 1 trillion. So they're working on that. And this money, I think, will fall into this. So, I mean, I support what you're going. I think we need to wait and see what happens over the weekend, putting it in the ALPA. It's a better solution to me than taking it out of stabilization or the bonding. I think, to me, we keep it in there and follow what happened. And then when the time the bond rating comes, and this might be something we want to bond in, it will be November or December, there may be some projects we can pay off that we can put the $750,000 back in if we don't even get the funds for this project. I think it's a very important project, I think it should be done, but I think we need to look at, we may have another tool. So I support your motion and then hopefully by November to December we may have better answers. If we can't work, if we put it back into the bond. So I support what you're standing for. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. To the amendment, so no one's- Council Member Lamb. Thank you, thanks, and this is to the amendment. Spoken to the amendment. That's okay, I'm kind of getting used to it over here, it's okay, it's all right, I'm a big girl. No, I agree with giving this a placeholder for placeholder for right now while we're having these discussions because it is an important project. And I, like Council Member Bledsoe, I brought forward a huge rebuild on Lansdowne Drive to a budget discussion, and my colleagues, you know, they supported it. So this is an opportunity to advocate for our own communities and our districts. So I think having a placeholder for it, because it does make me a little nervous about taking it out of budget stabilization because of the $750,000, which takes us down below $16 million. But I think having a placeholder is a very important part for a future discussion. So thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I appreciate the Council's comments. I think you all make very relevant points. I just wonder if the best way to move forward since there are, since this is a moving target is to leave the funding out of budget stabilization and infrastructure transportation bill comes down, then we look to fund it out of there. Or if it does qualify for ARP funds and not to get in the front of the line before other council members projects, we look at that opportunity. And I guess the other thing also, so whatever the council's pleasure, I'm fine, I just wonder if that would give us the maximum flexibility. And then the $750,000, I think the only thing coming out of budget stabilization will be the debt service payment. So it would be, I think, $40,000 this year and then we would look to fund the other $84,000 going forward. So, thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak, so this is on the amendment to the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. I think we have one no on the amendment. Now we're on the underlying proposal, the motion. No further discussion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. As amended. Thank you. And next is Council Member. Vice Mayor Kaye, if we may, none of us caught an amendment to that motion. I made the motion. I made the motion. To where, though? What was the amendment? What was the amendment? My amendment was to consider funding for the ARP first. Okay. And then to consider budget stabilization if it wasn't successful. That's what we weren't clear on. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you Vice Mayor. I have two items to bring forward. At last week's Environmental Quality and Public Works meeting, I presented the outline of a pilot program for an at home composting program that was vetted by the committee. And at that time I stated that I would be bringing a budget request forward for support. I therefore move to decrease the proposed fund balance of fund 1115 Urban Services District Fund in the amount of $9,000 to pay for three backyard composting pilot program educational sessions, as well as equipment and additional expenses. And to increase line item 111531320139571299 by $5,000. On line item 1115, 313, 201, 3095, 75101 by $4,000. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Vice Mayor. Discussion? Could you repeat those funds, please? They're up on the chart. Is there any further? Thank you. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. I believe that brings us to a list of committee referrals. She has one more. She has one more. I thought that was, isn't that all one motion? No, sir, item number eight. You may be looking at the not revised packet. I'm sorry, I don't have the latest. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is the final item in your packet for individual recommendations. Council members, I am excited to request funding for the project Phoenix Park Reimagined on behalf of our third district constituents and everyone who visits and works downtown. Phoenix Park Reimagined is part of the work that we've been doing to reimagine our park spaces as cornerstones of our community. Working toward greater equity in some of our less recognized spaces and inviting life and activity into underutilized places. Being next to the central library, Phoenix Park has much more potential than just as a space that you cut through between Main Street and the Phoenix building. Our Parks and Recreation Department has been working steadily with community partners like the library and park place apartments to introduce new ideas and uses like a dog park and outdoor children's activities. And that was prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Now, as we're nearing completion of the Vine Street portion of the Town Branch Trail, we'd like to look at the full scope of potential Phoenix Park, the Phoenix Park area to capture the imagination of and invite in participation from the many folks who will be utilizing our new trail system. Now I've passed around some initial concepts that have been proposed, and you can see them on the screen as well. And you can tell that we are thinking big about this project. But I'm also requesting your support in funding the full design work for the reimagining of Phoenix Park. Now in consideration of our discussion, I've prepared two motions, one that uses funds from budget stabilization, and one that uses funds from the American Rescue Plan Act. I've consulted with CAO Sally Hamilton, and based on that conversation, and based on other parks projects that we are funding, it would currently be preferable, I believe, to use the American Rescue Plan Act funds for this project. Therefore, I move to pre-fund design study for reimagining Phoenix Park out of the American Rescue Fund, which I believe is Fund 3230 in the amount of $150,000 to be placed in a line item that will be determined in the future. The justification for the use of these funds is that they will fall into, I believe, Category 4, replacing public sector revenue. And I do not believe that that will cause the total expenditure to exceed the roughly $25 million usage limit thus far on these funds. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. And thank you, Council Member Legere, for bringing this forward. Over the last seven years, many have heard me talk about the lack of children's activities downtown. In fact, I've been very vocal about trying to enhance when you bring your kids down for parades or to go to the library or, quite frankly, to bring to council, and you want to figure out what to do in those mean times, there's not a lot of space. And that would be a great space to try to, especially with the apartments and other facilities right there, to have more engagement. So I'm all for it, and I think taking it from the rescue plan makes a lot of sense, and I fully support you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, and thank you, Hannah. I think a lot of us have thought what could be done with that space, and so it's great to see something imaginative that could go in there. I had a question, one for Monica. Can I ask you a question? I think Councilmember Legree was talking about how this was part of the plan and Parks and Rec had this kind of imagined. So this is something that Parks has wanted for a while? Is that right? Yes, Councilmember Reynolds, thank you for the question. So this is recommended in the 2018 Parks Master Plan. It's certainly something that we have been working on since 2016. with developers, with the library, certainly with the city center investment and the new hotels that have popped up, to Council Member Bledsoe and Council Member Legree's comments, we know there's a huge need for children to have something to do downtown. So we imagine this as a downtown playground that's in conjunction with several partners, and certainly in conjunction with the library. The Knight Foundation has had a great interest in this space, has funded pilot projects in order for us to determine that we think this is a viable downtown project. So if we fund the design now, oftentimes if there's a lag and when we can actually do the whole thing, the prices go up, do you think that it's a feasible time to do that now with hopes that maybe we could get the money soon to finish it? That would be my hope. Is that the idea? Okay, so I'm definitely in support of this, but I am hesitant to put the funds from the ARPA money, designate them today once again. We've kind of been putting everything off and all the other plans that we all have ideas for and using that money. And so I think if we're going to be consistent, we would say we would wait to, we would keep this on the table as something that we're going to consider, but that we would wait to allocate the money. That's my only concern, I guess. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess my problem with this moving through a links committee, I just don't think this is an appropriate place. I think it ought to be put into committee and vetted a little bit more. Now, Commissioner Conrad mentioned the fact that the public library and other people downtown have bought into this, but I haven't heard that. This is new to me. I would think that you'd almost want some public opinion coming into this as far as the ownership there of the high rise, the development there. The retail space that's available there, the public library. And keep in mind, we had talked about maybe using some of this land for a new city hall, which went on the back burner because of the pandemic. So I think there's other factors in this particular property that is not being addressed and simply just to move forward this at a fast pace. I just think it's a little bit premature without it going into committee and allowing the public to have some input. And maybe they have, but they haven't had input to this body that I know of. And I've been on the council for several years. So it's a worthwhile project. I think it's a little overdone when I look at this, but I'm old. So when you get into the age factor, but anyway, I just have some hesitancy on it not being discussed a little bit more in the whole community type of thing. Thank you. Thank you, council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Legree for bringing this proposal forward. I just have a few, I guess, comments and then questions. Monica, I know you had mentioned that there have been conversations about doing something downtown, especially the space since 2016. And I know a large part of that conversation was based around creating space that was more inclusive of the homeless population that oftentimes frequents that area. Instead of displacing them, we create a space where it's more welcoming and inclusive and safe. Is that all part of reimagining what this space could be? Yes, Council Member Brown. It would certainly be about inclusivity, accessibility. We know that just from walking by that space, it's hard to get into. It's hard to be in this space because it's hot. There's no shade. So, yeah, those conversations have been about involving all of our community members. And that design phase would include this time for public input, public comment. We would involve, you know, Polly and her office of how do we make it a better space to accommodate everyone downtown. Okay. And then I think Council Member Bledsoe shared a lot of the comments around creating a safe, enjoyable space for young people downtown. Because right now it doesn't exist. They're in places that weren't designed for them to be in, like Herbred Park or the water fountains and Triangle Park. So I think this has the potential to give them a destination downtown. With moving this forward, has there already been some preliminary conversations with the property owners, the business owners, the owner of the high rise and the library about being involved in this process? And are they open minded to this study? Absolutely. We have met with them pre pandemic about even engaging and activating that space in the summer of 2020. So all of those folks were around the table when we were planning for a robust summer last year. So we've talked to certainly Mr. Anderson, the Webbs, we've talked to the library. So we've had many discussions and showed them this reimagined piece as well. Okay. Well, I'll support it moving forward. And one of the main reasons being is because I think this area is where a large portion of the homeless population downtown just inhabits. And if there's an opportunity to create a plan to make it safe and enjoyable for families and at the same time addressing some of the issues surrounding that, I think this makes it more than eligible for the ARP funding. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I want to say I love this project. I know I've talked a little bit with Monica about it, and I think it can be a great use of the space. And I somewhat disagree with Council Member Fred Brown about it needing to go to committee. I think it's gone out, and we've had a lot of public input, and it's on the master plan going forward. I do think, though, that maybe we should consider laying this on the table. the table. We were cautioned yesterday about ad hoc budgeting and using the ARPA funds without comparison altogether. So in keeping with that consistency, I would like to make a motion to just lay this on the table until we can consider it with the other ARPA funds. Second. A motion and a second. Is the excuse me? Is this a motion to table it or to table it to a time certain? Can you just table it to a discussion on the air? So, Council Member Worley, my understanding is if it's a debate to simply table, it's not debatable, but if it's a motion to move to a time certain, it is debatable. Well, we'll have to check the rules by somewhere. I don't know if you clarify whether that is in fact a motion for a time certain, because just a motion until we talk about something else that's not set is not necessarily a time certain either. I think it would be to postpone instead of table if you're doing it to a certain time. I just have to interject. Could you say that again? I think that if you are meaning to table it to a certain time, it would be using postpone as opposed to table. I think that's correct. It's really a motion to postpone discussion and have the discussion at a later time. It's not a motion to table, which would be to basically take it off the agenda entirely. So, I'm sorry, in the interest of time, I'm actually going to rule that this is a debatable motion. And if people wish to speak to the motion, which is to postpone discussion until there's been a full discussion of the ARPA money, if you would raise your hand about postponing. And I, okay, and I want to get in line. But Council Member will agree. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. When I'm seeing the projects that have been funded thus far with the ARPA money and the mayor's proposed budget, I'm seeing a number of parks projects. Many of which are equal to or lesser than in funding than this proposed design study. But that being said, if I'm recalling directly from our conversations thus far, many of our other ARPA discussions that have been suggested to come out of that fund have then been shifted to come out of budget stabilization. So if we're concerned about consistency, I believe that that should be a motion. And CAO Hamilton, I'm not certain if you could come to the podium and speak to that. Budget stabilization versus ARPA and what your thoughts are there. Our conversation, you were correct in reiterating our conversation about the funding source of this. As we've discussed and as you all have discussed in the last couple of days, this project could be out of budget stabilization. It could be out of ARP. It could be bonded with the future of another park. The reason why I suggested ARP when I talked the other day to Council Member Legree was the fact that there are already parks projects in the ARP money, and you haven't moved those out as of yet. And I felt that this one just goes into that package, And that was the reason why I made that recommendation to her. And, of course, that could be considered a wrong recommendation. But that's. Thank you. Anything else? That's it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, CIO Hamilton. Thank you. So, Councilman Worley. Thank you. Was I next in the queue to talk about that? If you were on the amendment, I thought you were on as. Yeah, on the amendment. Well, actually, I think I was next in the queue. Okay. All right. Go right ahead. I will tell you though, that's Section 4.406, you have made the correct ruling on this. Thank you. Just to be clear. Thank you. That made my day. So I just want to follow up on what Council Member Legree said. Earlier, two days ago, the council approved roughly $5 million in parks improvements for ARPA money that did not go to committee, did not have further discussion, it was presented by the administration. We agreed to do that. Fairly or not, I would remind people that I objected to that, but that's a different question. Right now the council has ruled that it's okay to put Parks Project in ARPA funds without go in a committee. And again, to be consistent, if I'm wrong, if all of these items that are on this list, it's 18 of them, if those were all handled in committee, I guess I missed it. Mayor proposed, we approved. That's where we sit at the moment. And so, to be fair and to be consistent, it seems to me we ought to consider this in the same way. So, thank you. Council member Maloney. To clarify on the amendment, didn't a couple days ago we decided to take all the parts and put it back in the stabilization because of the Davis bottom or we're still leaving them in there, okay. We left it in ARPA. We're still leaving it in there with the Davis, because I thought we were concerned about it. If we kept them in there, we wouldn't have to pay that extra fee. Okay, I agree. Okay, anybody else on the amendment? Let me get Councilman Reynolds and then Councilman Wally. Can you restate the amendment, first of all, please? The amendment, I believe, is to postpone discussion of this issue until we consider all the ARPA funds. Okay, thank you. And I agree with that amendment. I know that my link came up with a much bigger price tag to weigh about a parks project. But it was a parks project and we were told that we couldn't bring it forward for a vote until we discussed more fully the ARPA funds. And the reason that we gave that proposal was because of the mayor's proposed budget, including money, going to parks from the ARPA funds. And so I know this is a lot smaller price tag, but I think to be consistent, I support the amendment. And it's not that I don't support the project, because I want you to understand that I do, and I think it's great. I just think that we should have this discussion about ARPA funds all at once. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. to follow up that you how you correctly stated when we discussed our budget framework that we were going to leave these parks projects into the proposed arpa funding when i look at these as compared to say a sports complex or whatever these are by and large neighborhood parks there's a few of them that may despite being neighborhood parks are somewhat destination in nature but i think council member lagree is talking about a smaller project for a third district neighborhood even if it is a downtown park. So I think it falls in line with those that we've already decided should be ARPA funded. And I don't think that that really challenges our ARPA discussion for $150,000. So I will not support the motion to postpone, though I appreciate its intent. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one, I saw no one, now I do see someone. I'm just too slow. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I'll just be brief. I think a lot of the points that I wanted to make have been already made, and I won't support the motion to table. I think the amendment to postpone, I want to support that. just because I think this is a parks project that's part of the Parks Master Plan. It's a downtown park, I think, which it may be in a district, but serves as everyone's park. And if this is an opportunity to try to move forward to make this place safer and more inclusive, I think we should move forward with doing that. And I think ARP funds is an appropriate way to fund this study. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe. I thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to echo that, but I'll go one step further. which is, I do view this a little bit differently since it is in the heart of our downtown as opposed to other places. But I will also say that I would like to see Harrods Hill Park equipment all replaced. It's in desperate need. I think every person up here could talk about one or two or three parks in their districts that all need severe revamping, replacement, upgrades, etc. So I will support this with the understanding that that goes all the way around this table when we move forward with the ARP conversation. That master plan could use $10 million today and could go back through in every one of our neighborhoods. So I will support moving this one forward with that as long as we're all committed doing that all over the city. And the city hears that we're doing that all over the city. Thank you. I think we can assume that that will be the case, of course. I see no one else now signed up to speak. Can I have an electronic voting on the motion to amend, which is to postpone? That motion fails. That brings us back to the original motion as proposed. Is there any further discussion on the issue? Are people voting on it already? Seeing none, I'm sorry, Councilman McCurran. We did have a few people. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I had a few questions just before we took a vote on it, and I appreciate this plan laid out in front of us and the bright, beautiful colors on this, too, by the way. I was looking at the water feature on here, and I know this is just a rough draft on it, but what is it going to do to the water that's over there currently, Commissioner, and the dog park? Thank you, Council Member McCurron. We anticipate that dog park has been well-loved, and it's really the only downtown dog park, and it services those residents of the hotels and the apartments as well. So we imagine that that would stay. The fountain as it exists currently has a considerable leak of about a $90,000 investment to repair. So at this point, you know, we're just not planning to do that right now. We imagine some piece of water in that space, but really that would be influenced by our public comment, our design. But certainly we know that we have the utility there, and we know that folks love the water element in some form. Absolutely. And most major cities that we go to where you can visit that have a downtown park will have a nice water feature to it. So I would love to see that in our downtown. I'm not trying to tell Council Member Legree how to do her own project, but it would be a staple park to our community as well. I hope to see that just as welcoming. But thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And my name was up there before. I don't know what happened. It just disappeared, but that's okay. But Council Member Legree, I love this. I mean, this is so cool. It looks so whimsical. And Council Member Brown. Oh, he's talking. Council Member Brown, I was just saying how much I like this. And so it must make me very young. Your comment before. Yeah, yeah. Not this strong. You. So I like it a lot. My question, Council Member will agree, this $150,000 price tag, that is the total projected cost of what we're kind of looking at here? For the design. For the design. All righty. So some of the names that you rattled off that have been at the table, Bluegrass Community Foundation, I think you mentioned a few names there. But there's a lot of potential for buy-in on this with some type of recognition on site. So this could go beyond $150,000 easily. That's just for the design work. So I totally support it, and I appreciate Council Member LeGriebe bringing us to our attention, but also hopefully bringing it to our downtown for children. Did you also want to say something, Ms. Conroy? No, ma'am. I just didn't know if you had another question. No, no. It was just the potential for underwriting on this, and that I wanted to make sure that we all recognize that potential. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you Vice Mayor. Monica, did it come up? I think this is wonderful. I think it's great. The question I have is, I know the council's seeing it, but at the end of the day, the park advisory will have to look at this to make a recommendation, then it comes back to this council. So just to let everybody know that we're still a long way from home, but I like the idea. I think the park advisory will really be happy to see that too. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I just want to echo my support. I've sat over here very quiet this time, and I just want to echo my support for our downtown and for this project. I mean, can you imagine if we're in big, long council meetings and we need to take a break and we can go down and walk through something so great and refresh ourselves so that we can stay attuned to our meetings and our community. So I hope you all will support this. Thanks. Thank you. I see nobody else again signed up to speak. If we could have an electronic vote. This is on the motion as it stands. There was one abstention noted. Council Member Brown abstained. And that reflects passage of the motion. And I believe now that brings us to committee referrals. Unless we need to run the list. Yeah, we can handle those at work session. We can make those referrals at that time. And we can give you the updated final number just to be sure that we all match. For budget stabilization, we have $19,641, $225. Million, yes, sorry, million. I was just saying if everyone's paying attention. Okay, so before... Yes, we'll have a motion to ratify at the council meeting tonight with these changes. Need a motion to... We need it now or we needed it? Okay, so this is to move it on to the docket. We typically walk on the motion to ratify the budget at the work session to put it on the next docket. but since we don't have a work session, we'll make a motion tonight to ratify the budget and place it on the June 10th council meeting docket for first reading. For first reading. Yes. That's good. We're good? We're good. Okay, so before we adjourn, two things. Councilman Maloney, you had further comment? I wanted to make a statement before we adjourn about some clarification that was said earlier to make it clear to everybody that I've been getting a lot of emails back, so I want to clarify that before. We adjourn. So I will yield the floor to you, and then I will have a couple of comments. So what is it that you... Thank you. A statement was made earlier about me many years ago voting against the $600,000 because of the fire department. And I asked a question many times over how we were going to pay for it the next year. And we were able to get through that. But I wanted to keep the fire department, and they keep me informed, because a couple of them have called me where we've gone through this and we've put jobs in there that we did not have money for. So I want to be consistent to let everybody know that I am being consistent. And the fire department is one of the best organizations in the country. And I know all the overtime you all. I do want to go on record to let you know, not only you, the police, the medical people, the employees that have worked through the pandemic, There are money in the ARP that you all are eligible for, and I do support that money for you guys. Now, that's something we can put into the discussion, but you are eligible for all the hard work that you all have done, not only the fire, but the police. And people working at Kroger's, people working at Memphis, they're eligible for this money. I do support that, they do deserve the money, but that's a situation when it comes from the AARP when we have this discussion. So I want to go on record to know that I do care about you. Thank you. Thank you. And now, two things. First, I think it's fair to say I can speak in this issue on behalf of council to thank all of the administration and all of the people who paid attention to this process, it's a huge amount of work. And I hope that our citizens appreciate the thoughtfulness that has gone into it. And that if they've been watching our discussion, they understand that we're trying to be as careful as possible with the money that's entrusted to us. So thank you to all who've been involved. And then secondly, I sometimes confess to being overly optimistic. And in that vein, I actually thought we might be able to get our work done on Tuesday. But that turned out not to be the case. But in any event, as a placeholder for the continuation of our retreat on ARPA, I had asked to reserve space at the senior center for today. So I am going to ask a question of council since this time is blocked out. Would there be a willingness to convene for the continuation of our budget of the ARPA retreat at the senior center at 1.30 for a two hour try and wrap that up? Vice Mayor Kaye, we would have to advertise that as a public meeting. I'm sorry? We would have to advertise that as a public meeting and provide 24 hours notice. I thought we had advertised it when we set it up as a placeholder. We did not because we weren't, we didn't advertise it because this meeting hadn't ended yet. And so we have a budget cow today, but we don't have a council retreat. Okay, not possible. We'll find a time. Is there anything else before we adjourn? Seeing none, thank you all. We stand, I'll entertain a motion. I move adjourn. I have a motion and a second without objection. We stand adjourned.