# Council Work Session - September 21, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 21, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5439 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5439?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-09-21 - **Last revised**: September 21, 2021 - **Length**: 11,206 words - **Speakers**: Mayor > ⚠️ **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 convened on September 21, 2021, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber of the Urban County Government Center, with Mayor Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting focused on a single informational agenda item regarding the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding process. Council members received a presentation titled "Life Cycle of an ARPA Project Presentation," which provided educational information about how ARPA projects are developed, implemented, and managed from inception to completion. During the session, the Council conducted three votes on various matters, though the specific details of these motions were not specified in the meeting records. No members of the public provided comments during the designated public comment period. The meeting served primarily as an informational session to help Council members better understand the administrative processes and requirements associated with federal ARPA funding that the city had received as part of the federal government's COVID-19 relief efforts. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 21, 2021 meeting: **Present:** • Kay • Moloney • Ellinger • J. Brown • McCurn • LeGris • Lamb • Sheehan • Kloiber • F. Brown • Baxter • Reynolds • Plomin **Absent:** • Bledsoe • Worley No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 13 members were present and 2 members were absent. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three motions that were voted on by the council members. **Approval of New Business Items** [timestamp: 00:30] Sheehan made a motion to approve new business items, which was seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded individual vote counts. **Approval of Neighborhood Development Funds** [timestamp: 01:00] Baxter moved to approve neighborhood development funds, with Egris providing the second. This motion also passed by voice vote with no individual vote tallies recorded. **Essential Workers Funding Allocation** [timestamp: 02:00] Fred Brown made a motion to allocate up to $15 million for Urban County Government employees who are essential workers. Ellinger seconded the motion. This item was decided by roll call vote, passing with 10 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention. The members voting in favor were: - Kay - Moloney - Ellinger - J. Brown - McCurn - LeGris - Lamb - Sheehan - Kloiber - F. Brown No members voted against the motion. One member abstained from voting, though the specific member who abstained was not identified in the available records. All three motions passed successfully during the meeting. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial agreements totaling $363,109 for health-related services and evaluation programs. **Overdose Prevention Project Contract** The council considered Agreement L0930-21 with the Lexington-Fayette County Health Department for an Overdose Prevention Project valued at $261,000. This contract represents the largest financial commitment discussed during the meeting and focuses on addressing substance abuse issues within the community. **University Research Partnership** A second agreement, identified as L0931-21, was presented for evaluation services with the University of Kentucky Research Foundation. This contract is valued at $102,109 and establishes a partnership with the university's research arm to provide specialized evaluation services. Both agreements represent ongoing efforts to address public health challenges through partnerships with established local institutions. The Lexington-Fayette County Health Department agreement demonstrates the city's commitment to combating the overdose crisis, while the University of Kentucky Research Foundation contract indicates investment in data-driven evaluation and analysis capabilities. The combined value of these two contracts totals $363,109, representing significant financial commitments to health and research initiatives within the community. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of disagreement regarding the allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds designated for essential workers. **ARPA Essential Worker Fund Allocation** A procedural dispute arose over the timing and process for distributing ARPA funds intended for essential workers. The disagreement centered on whether the council should proceed immediately with fund allocation or delay the decision to allow for more comprehensive analysis of the distribution methodology. Council members expressed concerns about transparency in the allocation process and questioned whether sufficient procedural safeguards were in place. Some participants advocated for moving forward expeditiously to ensure essential workers received compensation without further delay, while others emphasized the importance of conducting thorough due diligence before committing the funds. The debate highlighted tensions between the desire to quickly deliver financial relief to essential workers who had served during the pandemic and the need to ensure proper oversight and transparency in the use of federal relief funds. Participants raised questions about the criteria for determining eligible recipients and the mechanisms for distributing the allocated funds. The outcome of this procedural dispute was not clearly resolved during the meeting, with the item appearing to require additional discussion or consideration before final action could be taken. The disagreement underscored the challenges local governments faced in balancing speed of relief distribution with proper administrative procedures when handling federal pandemic relief funds. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and participant names were not available in the provided meeting data.* ## Life Cycle of an ARPA Project Presentation [timestamp: 03:00] Finance Commissioner Erin Hensley delivered an informational presentation outlining the complete life cycle of an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) project. The presentation detailed the sequential steps required from project initiation through final closeout. Hensley walked through each phase of the ARPA project process, explaining the administrative requirements and procedures that must be followed to ensure compliance with federal guidelines. The presentation covered the initial project development stage, implementation phases, and the various reporting obligations that accompany ARPA funding. A key component of the presentation focused on the reporting requirements that organizations must meet throughout the project timeline. Hensley emphasized the importance of proper documentation and adherence to federal reporting standards to maintain compliance with ARPA regulations. The presentation served as an educational overview for attendees, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of what to expect when managing ARPA-funded projects. The detailed explanation of each lifecycle phase aimed to help participants better prepare for the administrative responsibilities associated with these federal funds. This was an informational presentation with no action items or decisions required from the meeting participants. The session provided valuable guidance for those involved in ARPA project management and administration. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the September 14, 2021 work session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the September 30, 2021 Council meeting, an allocation of up to $15M in ARPA funds to compensate qualified front line Urban County Government employees for exposure pay during the pandemic - **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): amend and direct the administration to come back to the next COW (September 30, 2021) with more detailed information related to the number of employees and different payment amount scenarios - **Motion** — passed (0-0): schedule a workshop to discuss the compensation policy and recommendations to strengthen the recruitment and retention of non-sworn employees with the Urban County Government - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer a presentation of crime reduction technology by police to the Planning & Public Safety Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the Council Meeting docket for Thursday, September 30, 2021, an Ordinance amending the Richmond Road Landscape Ordinance, Ordinance 213-83, to allow for installation of a privacy fence on the Richmond Road frontage of the properties located at 3604 through 3672 Green Park Court - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer a presentation on housing rehab grants to the General Government & Social Services Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 4:15pm --- ## Full transcript The Thank you. 3 o'clock and today is Tuesday, September 21st. And we have just barely a quorum. And so I will go ahead and call the council work session to order. And the first item on the agenda is public comment for issues that are on the agenda today. Is there anyone signed up for a public comment? No? All right, we'll move right along. There are no rezonings. There's no docket. There is a summary to approve from September 14th, Council Work Session. If I could have a motion. Council Member Sheehan moved, and Council Member Baxter, I think I heard you second. Are there any questions? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Is anyone opposed? That motion passes. Next, there are no budget amendments today. There is new business, so could I have a motion to approve, please? Second. Second. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan and Council Member Ellinger seconded. Now, if you have questions, please sign up. Council Member Fred Brown. It's not on new business. This is just recognition. Okay. All right. Any questions about new business? Anyone? All right. All those in favor of approving, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next is continuing business and presentations, and I'll entertain a motion to approve neighborhood development funds, please. Thank you. I think I heard Council Member Baxter moved. Council Member Legree seconded. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now I'd like to call on Council Member James Brown for the August 10th Planning and Public Safety Report. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Planning and Public Safety Committee meeting August the 10th, 2021 summary and motions. The meeting was called to order at 1.03 p.m. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the July 6, 2021 committee summary. There were no additions or corrections, and the summary was approved without dissent. Next, we had a recommendation from the infield and redevelopment committee regarding context sensitivity. Vice Mayor Kay explained that there are phases in reference to context sensitivity throughout the comprehensive plan. there has been some interest in clarifying as much as possible what it means to be context sensitive so this is an attempt to work on increasing that clarity when asked what the next step would be for getting clarity on context sensitivity specifically with regards to zone changes director Duncan explained that staff will review context sensitivity which would be incorporated into the next comprehensive plan no further comment or action was taken on this item. The next item was a comprehensive plan implementation update. Several members of the public provided comments regarding the ADU topic that was part of this presentation. Director Duncan and staff provided a status update on initiatives that came out of the last comprehensive plan 2018. A few of these initiatives included ADU, street patterns, and continuity. Open space Zota, floor area ratio and elimination of parking minimums. Most of the committee discussion centered around ADUs. Committee members expressed concerns regarding the 1.5 foot setback requirement, detached structures specifically with regard to new construction and basement conversions being capped at 800 square feet. While there is an owner occupancy requirement when asked about renting the ADU, Duncan confirmed that it would be be rented, there is no requirement that it would have to be rented to a family member. Because this item has generated significant public interest, the committee agreed to hold a special meeting on September 14th at 5 p.m. to continue this discussion, allowing all council members to have a vote and encourage public input. No further comment or action was taken on this item. The last item on the agenda was sustainable growth study update. However, due to time constraints, this presentation was postponed to September the 21st, 2021. The meeting adjourned at 2.34 p.m. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Are there any questions for Council Member Brown about his report? All right. Thank you again. Next, I'd like to welcome Finance Commissioner Aaron Hensley, who's going to give us a rousing life cycle of an ARPA project presentation. welcome well thank you i'm not real sure how rousing it's going to be but i'll do my best um so there have been a lot of questions and conversation around what the arpa process is going to look like and what i have tried to do is put some framework around um what has happened for the items that we have approved thus far and kind of show that in the general public as well as have some speculation on what may occur as the council continues to work through their process of the ARPA project evaluation and funding and this really is all driving towards the questions that came from what are we going to be responsible for reporting how are we going to be evaluated And I think it's really important to give some context to the things that are happening before that point in time, but also where we're having to get to with the reporting elements of it. So Treasury was really great about giving us some initial parameters. We have the interim final rule, which is the guidelines specific to the funding that we have received. In addition to that, they have provided many, many updates in their frequently asked questions. So they have tried to provide additional context and additional guidance to what they've written in the interim final rule that have come from conversations with municipalities and really in efforts to clarify what they have put forward. In addition to that, they have provided us a compliance and reporting guidebook. it's about 30 some odd pages of how we will be evaluated at the end of all of this. And so there's a variety of reports that are due. We're going to get to that. But just to try and kind of put all of this in the scope, because where we are at the end, we really have to be cognizant of that when we're making the decisions along the way. And I wanted to try and inform council so that as you all are going through this process, you'll know what we're going to be responsible for reporting. and have that as a basis for your decision making. So, in a very rudimentary attempt to make this a linear process, I have created this cycle, actually Ashley was fabulous enough to create it in our office, that kind of goes through the different steps that we might see an ARPA project go through. The first step is the project idea is initiated. and we've already come quite a long way in that process through August 27th that was the close date of the surveys that were initiated by council we also had the community meetings many forums many other general discussions and obviously the projects that were all submitted from the public now those may actually be taken as a project and funded just in their own right how they came but then again council may look at a project and it may be something that they want to consider as a springboard for something else they would like to do so it is it is kind of an evolving process and i think you all demonstrated the cal the the difference and the significance of all of the ideas and projects that you're having to wade through but those may you know they may need further work and further fleshing out and what they end up becoming may be something that wasn't initially submitted the second step is that the projects are being considered by council and so in all of the deliberation all the consideration it seems like there are several things that council is looking at as far as deciding whether this is a good project you all have been asked to submit 30 projects that you think that you can support and so we were trying to imagine what the questions may be asked that you may be asking yourselves as far as doing that evaluation process. The first half of these questions are going to look very familiar to you all because those are the ones that you said as your priorities and are listed on our ARPA website. Does it impact the most vulnerable population? Does it meet our budgetary priorities? Does it lead to any economic opportunity? So those are things that everybody's familiar with because those are the items that council has already established. Some of the other questions that may be asked during this process is what is the administrative burden is it worth it to be in in the ARPA funding or is it something we want to consider outside of that is the person that is asking for that funding able to meet the requirements of a federal grant who are those people who might need to be at the table and then of course does the project meet the timeline that we are required to meet so those may be some additional items of consideration as you all are thinking through this process the next step would be that the project is funded and this sounds really simple and it is somewhat in that it gets voted on and approved by council but it will still go through our normal budgetary process because these projects are going to be new and unique they will have to be set up within the grant and so that will require all of the budget amendments the first and second reading all the things that typically trigger as we change funding sources and move money so obviously there is some time associated with that. After that occurs and all of the budgets have gone through and everything is in process, what has happened for the projects to date is that we have created internally a project setup form. The next several slides have some details of one just for an example, one that was funded in the budget previously, the Lyric Theater, but this is kind of an important document because it is a snapshot of how the document was described all of its important or how the project was described all of its important information how the project was determined as far as its eligibility some of these projects may be eligible in multiple different categories and so we would want to look at and make a determination as to where that best fits particularly for the reporting that's do at the end we also have to keep an eye on projects that are impacting individuals living in qualified census tracts or assumed to be disadvantaged per the ARPA interim guidance we would want to have our budget laid out our cost estimated and then grants finance and the CAO's office will look at that to make sure all of those pieces before are complete before we put that in our people soft system and a project is created now again this is what has happened to the projects up into this date we have had some projects that are internal meaning they just happen within city government and then some projects that have external vendors so this could look very different this project form will be set up very different depending on what the project is and who the parties are that are involved and again I've given a few different pages that kind of show one example just to kind of walk through this really does set us up very well for the reporting criteria at the end the next step is project administration this is for me is is the high highest variability as far as what this looks like some of the projects that council may decide to fund could be a one-time expenditure they could be just as easy as setting the project up Say, for example, we wanted to provide funding for food insecurity and we wanted to reimburse for that expense. It could be just as easy as that. It may be as complex as a large capital project that involves construction. It goes all the way to the very end deadline. Obviously depending on that project, there will be a number of people that are involved, including division, the Department of Law, grants, finance, external parties. all and your constituents that you're working with whomever is involved in that process so this could be this this portion of the lifecycle could run the gambit from very simple to very very complex and all of this to not to get to reporting obviously all of this to get to our transit transformational reform in our city but when we're doing all of these things we're trying to keep an eye towards the reporting that we're responsible for you are all aware that we had a report that was due August 31st we actually had two one was the financial report and the other one was somewhat of a programmatic report as we have discussed our programmatic report was 67 pages for less than eight million dollars and so just to give an idea of what is required in that the majority of that report is centered around the project information inventory And so that lists in detail for Treasury what the project is, how it is qualified, the funding that is assigned to it. As that funding is spent, it will show the financial progress, and then the outcomes. Some of those outcomes we will set for ourselves, depending on the project. Others are set for us. For example, there is a small business criteria that is eligible under the ARPA funds. So for the reporting for small businesses, just to give you an example, your required reporting is an outline of the program, evidence supporting the program, and that's not our evidence. That is determined based on academic research. So we have to go out and find that and provide that evidence supporting the project. number of individuals served and how our aid specifically responds to the economic impacts felt by that population so they've given very specific reporting guidelines for that criteria and they have for several but we've tried to list up on on this reporting slide some of the things that that are responsible for reporting for the city in addition to those larger reports in In order to make it a little more manageable and a little more visible, we are including these revenue and expenditure reports in our budget and finance committee packet each month. So, right now we only have a small portion of funding committed and we're reporting that funding based on what was in the mayor's proposed budget. As we continue to get projects that are approved and funded by council, this will grow and grow and grow. will be a snapshot inventory month by month so that is available both to you the council and to the public in a variety of different methods we're going to still have to keep the website updated but this is another way for it to be accessible and then lastly we have the closeout process also as you all are aware all of our obligations must be made by December 31st 2024 that means we are committed to the funding we've signed contracts we have POs in place we are well in progress with that and committed to it but our expenditures must be made by december 31st of 2026 they gave that extra out time to to allow for the larger construction projects that they're hoping will be done within some of this funding so they've given a little bit of extra time once we have closed we will be responsible for retaining those records and subject to review for an additional five years. So Treasury can come in any period of time throughout the beginning to the end of this process, but they have an additional five years at the end once we've closed to come in and monitor and review anything they would like to review. So just in trying to kind of quantify the time and the effort, I know Council has spent a lot of time on the reporting side so far. it's been finance and grants and caos office that that's going to just become more and more prevalent as we continue to think about this but we wanted to try and provide a kind of end of the road where we have to go so that as you all are making these decisions and as you all are thinking about these things you know what we're going to be responsible for and it'll help inform your decisions at this point i'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you very much council members if you'll log in we'll have questions you might get off easy everybody's got it thank you very much for that presentation really appreciate it i'm sure if council members have questions later they'll get in touch with you absolutely all right thank you thank you um next up is council reports and First, we have Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. This is really a good lead-in, probably, with what I want to do on presenting the motion. Appreciate that, Commissioner, that update on the ARPA funds. You know, we, and I say the Council, including everyone, have come to a point in time that we are discussing in the Council as a whole how we can effectively spend the monies from the American Rescue Plan Act that will benefit the entire community. Acronym ARPA, of course, has certain restrictions, but one item that has consensus is the ability for this council to address the issue of payments to essential employees for service above and beyond their duties during the pandemic time period, which, by the way, is still not over. we need to address the payments to the qualified employees and hopefully have the checks in hand as soon as possible. The motion I am making starts this process and allows the administration to arrive at the detail of how much each eligible employee gets and who participates in this. So having said that, I move to place on the docket, which will be September 30th docket next week, a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor to allocate up to $15 million to provide American Rescue Plan Act pay for essential workers. The definition used to define essential worker and essential work is based on the guidelines set forth in the plan, the act. So moved. Second. Council Member Ellinger seconded. Now, if you want to discuss, if you'll log in, please. Any discussion? Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Mayor. It's my understanding that this is in line with the proposal the administration had set forth earlier, so I was wondering if I could get someone from the administration to maybe clear up a few questions I had. CIO Hamilton, I'm sure, can speak to this. I have to bring my ARPA book wherever I go. Fair enough. Thank you, C.A. Hamilton. So just right off the bat, where does this number of 15 million come from? When we proposed, when the mayor proposed her number, she proposed $10 million in there. And we ran, we have not done, I'll start back and tell you. We started with the process of approximately how many people that we thought would qualify for this. And we were at that $1,600, $1,700 range. We also, $1,600, $1,700 employee range. We also talked to a lot of employees. And when we thought that probably we were going to be a little too low at that $10 million range because we have to pay fringe on all of this. And so therefore had suggested or rather said that probably we needed to be in that range up to $15 million because the process is going to be that we're going to go back with all the directors and all the commissioners and go over this very carefully to see who qualifies and is eligible for this money. And we needed some room. So to that point, we do not know who qualifies. We do not know how many people. We don't know what allocations these would be equally or not. It's just we kind of have an idea of what the pool may look like. I think I probably described this a little too casually to you. Okay. We do know what the qualifications are. We know that we are going to stick with the law that says somebody had to have face-to-face interaction or they touched things. This really law came into effect when we didn't know what was going on. If you remember, I know we were just spraying everything we touched up in our office because we didn't know if touching things caused problems. So that's why this law comes into effect and really says they want face-to-face interaction and they want people who touch things, not anybody that teleworked. We looked at what we thought were a lot of people that were involved. For instance, we looked at water quality. We looked at waste. We've got people that worked on our trucks that had all kinds of things in it. We have the coroner's office. We have public safety. We have numerous people. I mean, it's not just a vague group of people. We know who they are. We just have to come down and give an accurate count. Okay, thank you for that. That helps. Have we looked at what other areas and municipalities have been doing in this as far as, you know, I've seen some of these proposals going out there saying that, you know, there's some kind of a salary cap. were above that salary cap, people were not eligible, or some places that were mandating vaccination in order to get these kind of benefits? Has the administration looked into these things and come up with positions on that? To answer one of those questions, the one that you're talking about is the salary cap. is there is a reference in this law that says you cannot go past 150% of salary for your county unless you report it. That's $69,000. They make it very clear that that does not eliminate those people that make $69,000, but that has to be reported specially to Treasury. As far as what other cities are doing, there are numerous things that we read continuously, that they're looking at this or looking at that. I don't know. I don't have one off the top of my head, sir, that would tell you about the premium pay, but I know there are a lot of cities that are doing it. Okay, and one last thing here. With this motion, it just directs the mayor to allocate up to $15 million. It doesn't specify whether they're in the private sector or in the public sector. Is the intention that this is only for those in the public sector and not those in the private sector? Or what is the intention? Our intention and the count that we have been looking at is our employees. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Next is Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Brown, for this motion. I plan to support it, but it would be interesting to hear what other council members have to say. I think what came very clear to me during my public ARPA feedback meeting, a public input meeting, is we have a lot of city employees that were on the front lines during the pandemic. And if there is a provision in this American Rescue Plan money that makes funds available to compensate them for their exposure risks during the times they were working during the pandemic. I think we need to explore that. I think there were some comments last week about we have the opportunity to authorize the administration to go ahead and start considering spending these funds or allocating these funds, and I think we need to do that. I think it's unfortunate what it does to our process, but I think in light of the retention and the employment issues that we're having in regards to making these funds available sooner than later, then I think this is an appropriate motion to make at the time and I plan to support it. So thank you, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Brown for bringing it forward. Just one technicality, as stated, it does not refer to LFUCG employees. And I presume that would have to be amended if we were to go forward with this. But more in terms of the process, I have advocated as much as I can, that council not make specific decisions until we have all of the information about what's been proposed in front of us. And we are in the midst of that process. We have the information. We have not reviewed it in any depth. And what we have planned for the next ARPA COW is to have every council member submit their 30 top most important projects. It seems to me if in that process, pay for LFUCG employees is indicated by every single council member. It would then be appropriate to move forward, but I have a concern about short circuiting this. And again, making budgetary decisions, even though we're pretty sure about what the outcome's likely to be. It seems to me if we want to be consistent with our own practice, that we ought to do it in a way that's consistent with the system we've set up for doing so. So at the moment, I'm not inclined to support the motion. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. When I would set my 30 items, this would be my top priority to take care of our employees who've had to work during these difficult times throughout the pandemic on the front line. So this would be my number one. Thank you, Council Member Brown, for bringing this forward. There is a discrepancy. I hear Heroes Pay and I hear the ARPA. I think there are differences on that. Could you, and I don't think we got the Heroes Pay, but we're using this from the ARPA as kind of Heroes Pay. So ARPA actually calls it premium pay. Premium pay. Hero pay is a terminology that people are using to talk about it, but it's not anywhere in the legislation. But I believe it is the same thought. Right, but I think there actually was hero's pay. We just did not receive that. I think there is some that they was given out, but the money we're getting is the ARPA money. And how is it defined? What's it called? It's defined as premium pay. Premium pay, okay. And then with that being said, when we look at the $15 million, are we going to divide that up equally between the people that we come up with the – I don't know who – I'm sorry? I just – yeah, if you don't mind. How are we going to go about with the 1,600 or 1,700 people? Well, my understanding in arriving at the motion and discussing with certain individuals and administration, and we kind of hashed some of this stuff out, but yes, it would be essential workers within urban county government, and they would all be equal. If they qualify as an essential worker, then they qualify. Now, we will have another motion that we want to discuss and putting all other employees, we want to do something with all other employees as far as the supplement pay. But this motion here, we have to deal with it first or we won't even discuss the other one. So, but, yeah, I think it'll all be equal. Yeah, there's no reason for us not to be, yeah. Oh, my mic went on. Thank you. one would be for the 16 or 1700 you said that's about the the number that we would have that would go that would be classified as essential workers yeah she's working with the division directors i think to see the employees that yes let me let when i said the 16 or 1700 those were the ones when we just looked to think i need to go back and really get that number refined with these directors and commissioners. And then I guess we'll be bringing for the rest of the employees, we'll be doing a supplement. Is that your idea? Well, we'll discuss that later. I think Councilmember Bledsoe has a motion after we discuss this and vote on this one, if it's appropriate to have that motion. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I want to make it really clear that I am in support of HeroPay, PremiumPay, and our essential workers getting ARPA money. I support that fully. I also echo some of my council member colleagues' concerns about this process. I think that we should do this, and we should do it quickly, and that we should make it a priority. But we have a meeting next week in which we could decide to do this. and I think that it is, I would like just a little bit more time to look at this more thoroughly. We're getting some different numbers and we're hearing different things and I want to make sure that we do this properly. So I'm just really on the fence about this, honestly, and it's not because I don't support our employees getting money, because I do. I'm just concerned about it. And when we talk about all of our essential workers, we're including fire and police in this number, correct? Yes. Okay. I want to make that clear because I know they also are negotiating their contracts. So thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has not spoken the first time? Then we'll make the second round. No? Okay. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Mayor. I know I asked a few questions, and we don't really have a lot of time to go into all the detailed questions that I'm sure I could sit down with people and talk about. But I think that goes kind of to the point of what Vice Mayor Steve Kay and Council Member Reynolds put out there is we're talking about $15 million with 15 minutes of discussion, while several of our colleagues are not even here to weigh in. and we're jumping the line of the process that we told the public we were going to take. We have been very transparent. We've gotten the survey data. We've set a timeline. And to do this is kind of a betrayal of their trust, to jump in ahead of the line and say, we're going to do this right now with 15 minutes. We're going to throw out $15 million. I still have a lot of questions. I feel like even with these numbers at the 1600 or 1700, the numbers aren't breaking down to even what we requested. When we heard from public comments last week, these numbers aren't coming up to what people were asking us for. And we haven't had time to evaluate that, talk about specifics, make sure that the people who deserve this are getting this. I really feel like we should hold off on this for now. And again, I will defer to my colleagues on that, and maybe if it goes around again, we can make a motion if that has some strength to it. But as it stands now, I just feel like we're going to leave somebody out. We're not considering everyone. We're just allocating a pool of money, and we've done that in the past, and we've seen it with the rental assistance. We allocate a pool of money, and it has varying results as we try to implement it. If we allocate this pool of money now, are we going to have those same problems? Are we going to have the public coming back to us telling us how they didn't feel like their voices were heard and how they didn't feel like they were a part of the process? I don't want to be there. I think that our transparency and how we have talked over and over again with the public about our process is worth more than pushing this through a week or two in advance. Thank you. I'm going to skip down to Council Member Bledsoe who has not spoken yet. Thank you, Mayor. While I appreciate the concern that you just said, I take a little bit of offense to the fact that we're betraying trust and that that's somewhat intentional with 15 minutes of discussion. one, we've been talking about this since the spring pretty extensively we've been talking about it in public meetings we've been talking about it here we've talked about it in surveys we've talked about it with people who have come to speak with us at this circle, at this room and in private meetings with a number of people I too respect the process I respect it I like processes I like thoughtful work I like data-driven responses to public trust money, which is what this is. And I think Council Member Brown's intent with this is to get that ball rolling now. This is September 21st, I believe. If we're going to do this in a way that shows the employees that we are listening to those who work for us, which is true. They work for this city, and we are the guardians of their trust and being appreciative of what they do to serve our city, and I mean all employees who do that. Waiting, this is a first step in that. It's not the final step. It is not. This is just the first step. As we've said a number of times, we make motions to put things close to dockets. It's two weeks before this comes for a first read, and then a second read. lots of opportunities for continued conversation lots of opportunities to get feedback you know people are important and i i do i do appreciate when people said that the criticism that we're making projects people and they are different things completely different things i think this shows our commitment to the people that we care about work with us and for that reason um i'll support the motion moving forward thank you thank you vice mayor kay thank you mayor i'm i guess i'm a little bit concerned first about the information that we have on hand and um cao if you wouldn't mind Is it fair to say that a quick survey, a quick scan indicated somewhere around 1,600 or 1,700 employees who might qualify for this bonus? Yes, sir. In my opinion, that is what a quick survey. But this, as you said, is such an important determination that that information we have to make sure is correct. And I feel that it's incumbent upon me, in my position, working for you and the mayor, to go down and see exactly how we have made that determination and how these qualify. okay and i appreciate that um when i do the numbers somebody and i i don't want to put words in anybody's mouth somebody said you you did some numbers and you estimated 1600 or 1700 dollars per no i think i misspoke over there it was 16 or 1700 employees okay and the 10 million I think I did misspoke and say dollars when I answered council member. Then the $10 million placeholder is based on an average or a payment of. You could say, and I'm doing this just on my head here, just a second. But you could say that if you took $1,600, $1,700 and you were talking about $5,000 apiece and you did all the fringe, you'd get to $10 million real fast. Okay, so what we don't have is real, at the moment, real numbers. Thank you. So I hesitate to do this, but I'm going to move forward with an amendment to this motion. And the amendment would be that we direct the administration to come back to the council at its Committee of the Whole meeting a week from Thursday. With a much finer analysis of exactly how many employees would be able to benefit from this. and then the cost at a couple of different ranges, three, four, five, $1,500, whatever, so that we can see exactly what we would be committing to. And I would be, at that point, I would be much more inclined to entertain a motion at the cow to move forward so that we start the process today, but we don't make a decision to start moving it onto the docket until what would be, what, nine days from now. So moved. Second. Okay, there is a motion by Vice Mayor Kay, second by Council Member Reynolds, if I heard correctly, to ask the administration to come back to the Committee of the Whole meeting with a more fine-tuned analysis of the number of employees who would qualify as essential with a cost at a couple of ranges. Did I get that correct? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Now, there are a bunch of people in for discussion of the motion. I'd like to see by hand who'd like to discuss the amendment. First will be Council Member Bledsoe, then Council Member James Brown, and we'll continue. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I sincerely appreciate what I think is your intent with the motion. Here's why I will disagree, and this is just my personal opinion. I think the motion made by Council Member Brown was intended to be broad and to have some flexibility so that the administration had the flexibility to look at things like fringe benefits. This is premium pay. This is basically an hourly rate that's up to $13 an hour, up to a certain amount, which is extensive TD work on the administration to do. And it involves a wide variety of employees, as we've kind of mentioned in broad, in totality. It's this to this. Therefore, the intent of being more broad with this to allow the administration to be forward with it is that they can then do that with as much flexibility and nuance as needed to address the variety of needs and challenges that they have just doing the premium pay portion of this. I hope I have said that adequately. That is certainly my interpretation of the intent, and if I am wrong, Commissioner or Tyler or Sally, please feel free. That was, I think, the reason why I think Councilman Brown did not go into more specific detail. Thank you. Thank you. next is council member james brown then we'll have council member ellinger then we'll have council member fred brown thank you mayor and i agree with council member blutsoe's comments i've done the other piece of that is i just wonder if it's enough time and does it actually get the ball rolling enough to actually try to cut these checks and get them in employees hands if they have to come back and report to us. And then the other aspect of it is I think the administration is equipped with the staffing to work on these numbers, to make these decisions, and work with the council to do it. But I don't want the appearance that council is standing in the way of rewarding our employees that were at risk and exposed to the virus during last year and even now. So I'm fine, and I think Council Member Brown's motion is broad enough to give the administration flexibility to make a decision that we can support. I don't think we have to necessarily micromanage every aspect of the ARP funding. So I do think that the motion as presented, not amended, gives the administration that flexibility and still includes us in the process going forward. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, then Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor, in your amendment, did you say not to put it on the docket? Because the original motion says to place it on the docket. but I thought at some point you said we would hear this before we put it on the docket. If I may respond. Yeah, so here's one possible scenario, which is actually not very, I mean, well, let me describe it, and I'll say it's not different from what's proposed. And that is at Thursday's cow a week, we get the information that we've asked for from the administration. We see also all of the ways in which council members have ranked, not ranked, but chosen their top 30 projects. If at that time it's appropriate to make this very same motion, that can be walked on to the docket later in the day. It would not hold up anything. It does not change the timeline. The only thing it changes is, and this may not be important, but the only thing it changes is the perception that we have altered our process and made an exception to it. And I understand the interest in making it clear that Council does not want to hold up what we believe is something that needs to be done. But we could do it that way. And it does not change the actual timeline for getting it on the docket. So I would urge support of my motion amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next is to the amendment, Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I take issue to your amendment and the fact that I think it's a delay tactic. and I want to go back just a little bit because we've been talking about this for two or three months in Committee of the Whole. This basically is a Committee of the Whole also that we're dealing with right here today and all council members I know we've got some that are absent but when you talk about the process you got to remember Vice Mayor that process basically come from you and two other members that were in a group, and you said this is the process that we would like to come forward. Now, the rest of the council members didn't object to that pretty much. I think I objected to it in the sense that I felt like there were some issues that had been shown out there, and this was one issue that we needed to get involved into it and move forward. We've got other issues out there, I think, on that supposedly project list that we ought to go forward with a little quicker. I just don't think our process has been moving quick enough. And what I've, you know, tried to present here is let's give the administration some credit for being able to run this government, and they can bring back the information there and get this thing started. But if we keep delaying it, it's going to be after the first of the year before we can get anything done because it takes time. It takes some, you know, we're talking about weeks to get this moving. So I wouldn't support the amendment at all, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Thank you. Thank you. Next will be Councilmember Kloiber, then Councilmember McCurn, then Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank the vice mayor for for putting that motion forward I think it could give us some time to get a little bit of clarity on the questions I was bringing up and just as a point of clarification His amendment does not delay this process at all Because by pushing it to the next Thursday's meeting It is still able to be read out of that on to the docket that day. Is that not correct vice mayor? Yes So this isn't an amendment that delays anything If we're worried about getting this out quicker, it will be the exact same amount of time if we do this today or if we do it next week with more information. So without that pressing time concern, I would urge everybody to vote for a little more time so that we can have more of an understanding over the numbers, who are qualifying, and how this actually looks to make sure that what we're putting in place is something that's going to benefit everyone. one. So, thank you. Thank you. Council Member McCurn, then Council Member Sheehan, then Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. And similar to what Council Member Brown said, I do appreciate the motion coming forward. Similar to what he had just mentioned a minute ago is that when we had our last Committee of the Whole meeting, I notated this a few times of there are a few items that I disagreed upon that need to be a part of the project process and this is one of them I think that this needs to move forward faster and it needs to move forward to show our employees that who have worked the front lines they didn't waver upon that and if we're just gonna sit here and say process process process you know they can come back and say the same thing to us in the past or in the future again and I think that this is a movement forward for us to show them that we have their best interests at hand so I will not be support supporting the amendment do appreciate the process though or respect of the process. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate this discussion. I appreciate the motions coming forward. Councilmember Fred Brown for bringing this forward. I appreciate the amendment and the consideration that the Vice Mayor is trying to give to our process. As someone who is a part of the data team. I just want to speak to the fact that I feel this idea and this particular motion to move this money forward is fundamentally different than some of the other projects. So I will vote to move this forward as fast as I can without amendments to get that process started. I think we can still be presented with the data and the details that we're talking about here at our Cal meeting or at our next council meeting. I think we can get that information. However, I would like to see this process move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Oh, Councilmember Bledsoe to the amendment. Thank you, Mayor. I was going to make a friendly amendment. I guess I'm maybe more interested in seeing if this moves forward first before I do so. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment who hasn't yet had a chance? All right, then Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. um there's two things um i take a little exception to the notion that somehow the council has not been involved as a as a whole and as a body in determining our process moving forward not everybody agreed with every piece of it but on the whole the council knew what the plan was and has approved it i guess that's mainly insider pool i'm i'm concerned that a part of what i'm hearing is that what we're now discussing is probably to the public not understandable. We're in process land, and we're trying to understand why it makes a difference whether we move it forward now or in 10 days. I think what's clear is the council intends to, one way or another, reward our employees according to the ARPA rules. The question of exactly who they are and exactly how much we want to allocate remains. The motion that's on the floor before I made my amendment basically says up to $15 million. So in light of the discussion and in light of the fact that I recognize that process is not something that most people know how to think about very well or care much about, I'm going to withdraw my motion to amend and let this go forward if that's the wish of the council. Thank you. Thank you. Is the seconder, I've forgotten who seconded it. Council Member Reynolds, do you withdraw your second? Thank you. All right. So there is no amendment on the floor. Now we have the main motion on the floor, and we'll go back to discussion of the main motion. Council Member James Brown. All right, Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you. And Ms. Hamilton, you might be able to answer this. The way that this goes about, and this might be getting a little more in the weeds than we need to at this point, but it goes out as a bonus, is that, and it's a one-time bonus, is that how we would do it? It will have to be, and the lawyers will all come up here and grab me by the shoulder, it goes out as a supplement. Okay, that's why I wanted to make sure because I think there is a way that we have to do it. There is a difference in the two. Exactly. And it will go out as a salary supplement. And we're still dealing with the fact of what has to be taken out of that. Right, I know there's wording and it needs to be in the right way. Yes, sir. And do we have a time frame how long we will be able to get this to our employees? Because as somebody said earlier, the sooner the better. I think that in the discussions that we had had between when this would come up, this is a lengthier process than our normal. Remember when we did this at Christmas or so with general funds? This is ARPA money, and according to our commissioner of finance, it might take as much as two months. So we were certainly aiming that as soon as it were passed, we would be trying to get that to everybody by Thanksgiving or before Christmas. Thank you. Well, I plan on supporting this, and I hope my colleagues do too. Thank you, Mr. Brown, for bringing this forward. Thank you. Are there any other council members who wish to speak to the motion? and if I recall the motion does not specify the specify urban county government employees as was brought up earlier so I would I would go ahead and part of as part of my motion because that was the intent okay it was the intent of certainly and I expect a second and so you kind of government Okay. All right. So that was your initial intent. Okay. Does anyone else wish to speak? All right. I see no one, so we will take a vote. And thank you for putting up the electronic vote. Very good. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. And anyone opposed? No. We have four absent and we have ten yes votes, one abstention, which goes with the majority. Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate that from that discussion. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe has asked to speak. Thank you. I'm speaking in tangent with just what just happened. So I appreciate this is not my council comment time. If you'll just allow me a few moments to make two important motions that I think need to be made alongside of what the motion we just took. So as budget chair, I'm placing into committee to be heard October 26th at the Budget Finance and Income Development, a discussion of one-time salary supplemental pay for non-ARPA qualified personnel. And as budget chair, I don't have to ask for a motion. I'm just letting you know that we're going to have a conversation on October 26th. Secondly, we've had in committee, Council Member James Brown had in committee, a discussion of overall compensation pay, which we're wanting to have in committee discussion this fall. Honestly, there's just quite a bit in the BFED committee right now that is all important. And due to the nature of this conversation, we want to make sure we have it, give it the time it deserves at the same time. So I am now also asking for a workshop to discuss the compensation policy and recommendations to strengthen the recruitment and retention of non-sworn employees to be held at the same, around the same time as this October 26 meeting as a supplement to our BFED conversation. Is that all one big motion? The second piece is a request of the Vice Mayor to make a better workshop. Okay. Thank you. So we need a second for your motion to put the workshop. Yes. Yes, we have a few seconds. Is there discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. That was for, who did you say that was for what employees? The workshop or the budget? The workshop. The workshop is to discuss the compensation policy and recommendations to strengthen the retention and recruitment of non-sworn employees. So that's retention for non-sworn? Yes, that's what I just said. And I agree with that, but do we have something for sworn to? Because that seems to be an issue. We do. In separate conversations, we do. Okay, good. Thank you. Will you please restate your motion? I motion for there to be a workshop to discuss the compensation policy and recommendations to strengthen the recruitment and retention of non-sworn employees in the October time frame around the BFED committee. Okay. Is there any more discussion of Council Member Fred Brown? Thank you, Mayor. I had originally proposed this as a second motion, and I'm not so sure, Council Member Bledsoe, it has everything in it that I wanted. And I was reading, or I'll read this, in addition, this council needs to compensate all the full-time employees who do not follow under ARPA guidelines. I did, sir, that was my first motion, which I don't need to make the motion since I'm chair. Okay. So that motion is for specifically a discussion of one-time salary supplemental pay for non-ARPA qualified personnel of LFUCG. Okay, where did the non-sworn come in when you were discussing that? For the compensation study and recommendations. Oh, I'm sorry, you've got two motions in. Yes, sir, I do. Could we vote on those separate? could we the first one doesn't need a motion since i'm putting it in committee to be heard the vote if she's putting it into committee as the chair i don't need to do that oh okay so she can go ahead yeah as the chair she can put it in which she's pretty sure which she just did yeah okay so the motion on the floor reg is regarding the compensation and And actually, it's the rest of the employees that wouldn't fit under our frame. Let's keep it simple to people out there. Thank you. Continue the discussion. Is there anyone else who wishes to discuss the one motion that's on the floor? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Bledsoe, for that. We've had this item in committee for a while, and we've been looking for the right time to have the conversation. And I guess it's hard to find the right time to have the conversation to talk about pay and everything that goes into it. But I think it's appropriate now to go ahead and have a workshop so everybody can have a better understanding how we're having workforce and retention issues based on how out of whack the pay scale is. So I appreciate the motion to have a workshop and look for how it can guide us better in the future with the item that's in committee. So thank you. Thank you. is there any other discussion council members if you'll log in no i see no one uh council member cloiber no okay all right all those in favor of the motion on the floor please say aye anyone opposed all right that motion passes and we're still in council report which we just started so log in please if you have a council report councilmember Kloiber thank you mayor I would like to take a minute to invite everyone to come walk with me this Saturday September 25th for the YMCA step up for kids I will be walking all day a hundred thousand steps in one day which is about 50 miles in order to try and raise money for after-school education programs for kids through the YMCA. We'll be having many guest speakers come down and talk with us during that time. I'm inviting anybody to do it either remotely or down there. We're trying to raise money for a good cause, and hopefully I can get some of my council colleagues to stop by as well. I think a few of them said they might. So I want to invite anybody out there in the public who wants to participate or donate or just be a part of it. It's healthy living and education for children and we'll be doing it at the Whitaker YMCA I guess starting between 6 a.m. until 9 30 at night. So when I say all day, I really mean all day. All right. Thank you guys Do you have a spare pair of shoes you're taking I Do that's awesome. That's great goal councilmember Baxter Thank you mayor. I have a few things first I want to take this opportunity to thank our fire department for a wonderful parade we had on Sunday evening. It was so nice to see the community out and what a show we had with all of the equipment that was there. So that was really nice. Second, I want to take a minute to thank the Parks Department and Live Green Lexington for a highly successful movie Under the Stars that was in Chileto Park this past weekend. I think we had over 300 people there. It was amazing and And I look forward to partnering with parks in the future to maybe continue something similar. And then finally, I move to place in the Planning and Public Safety Committee a presentation of crime reduction technology by our police department. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Council Member McCurn seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. That's all. Thank you, Mayor. You're welcome. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Albright, could you – sorry, I didn't mean to demote you. Commissioner Albright, could you – sorry about that. That's blasphemy for some people. I'm sorry. Could you tell us about what's going on with the recycling? I saw the press release, and it looks like we're going to finally get some paper back where we can recycle again. Yes, sir. Thank you for the opportunity. We are the budget amendment or the budget that was approved that had $4.2 million for the new machinery that will allow us to better sort our materials and actually sort a larger amount of materials safely. That has now reached a point where the machinery is ready to be delivered in January. but in order to do that we have to shut down and take all of the old equipment out and then put the new equipment in so with the the reason we wanted to just make sure it was on everybody's radar is because we were going to have a publicly issued RFP this week that would allow us to have a backup plan for our material while we're doing all of those upgrades so that we don't have to stop collecting recycling during the upgrade for better recycling so that's the that's what happened this week with the goal of the March timeline being ready to go with paper being collected curbside again and better quality material on the whole I know our residents are looking forward to getting able to recycle again so I'm glad to hear we're moving forward thank you thank you and if I can just add anybody who wants to continue to use the yellow bins we would still love it. That paper is great. We get good money for that. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to, on behalf of Councilmember Worley, I move to place on the council meeting docket for Thursday, September 30, 2021, an ordinance amending Richmond Road Landscape Ordinance 213-83 to allow for installation of a privacy fence on the Richmond Road frontage of the property located at 3604 through 3672 Green Park Court. So move. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Bledsoe. Any discussion about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And then, Mayor, I would also like to place in General Gov Committee a presentation of the housing rehab grants. So move. Okay, thank you. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Sheehan? Any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe? Thank you, Mayor. Just a few things. One, Chris, do you happen to have a flyer for me? Thank you. So Chad Lacefield, who lives in the 10th District, started an organization called Golf Club called Force on the Course. And he did this in schools and COVID hit, and now the organization has moved outside of schools, but still uses middle school and elementary age kids to have them golf and learn the game of golf and learn other life skills. And they are doing their next course here on Sunday, November 7th. And they're doing it last year, last fall they did it with police and fire. This year they're doing it with disabled veterans. And so they're looking for anyone who would like to still play with them on this date to reach out. You can see the force in the golf.golfgenius.com, which is their website. And then the students are going to make hero posters about their golfing partners to talk about them in the schools and raise awareness, which I think is a really cool idea. he's done a phenomenal job so we're doing we're doing a pass around and this is one of those things that Gilbert Bunnell Foundation is the one who sponsored this initially which is a great idea so I'm going to do a pass around to start and if you'd like to participate that would be great I think he's done this with Curtis has been a great partner with the Parks Department so thank you for that and then second just a little foreshadowing of next week's BFED committee I wanted to one, let you know that the budget amendments were going to come from finance on that day. So we'll have a discussion of that pilot project. And then two, if you'll recall in the budget committee, or in the budget process from last year, we put in an additional $300,000 for economic development for this fiscal year, and we had not allocated specifically how it's going to be used. We're going to have a discussion next week. The brief coming up is a regional partnership with our regional partners and other counties around us. And then secondly, a health care initiative, which is a very strong public-private partnership with our hospitals in Fayette County, the state, as well as leveraging some other resources to help make that money go a lot further. So that conversation will be next week. So if you're interested, I want to make sure you knew that was coming. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. Does anyone else have a council report? No? All right. We'll move on. There's no official mayor's report, but I do want to give you an update on our COVID. Just a couple things. We have transitioned our door-to-door canvassing over to Wild Health. They are now doing that, and there are some paid staff now working for Wild Health on the canvassing and taking on other duties. and this allows that program which has had some really good success getting folks vaccinated in the neighborhood clinics to work more closely with the provider so that is still ongoing and it allows the wild health staff program staff to have a little more time to recruit volunteers And then our health care stakeholder group is meeting still. They have been meeting since March of 2020. And just as a reminder, this is all of our hospitals. It's our major clinics. It's health care providers. It has been a very essential part of making decisions and how we've moved forward. Dr. Humball has been in there all of this time. And the latest discussion is whether and how we could have a community monoclonal antibody treatment clinic. The two major issues with this are staffing, and there's a shortage of the monoclonal antibodies right now. But we have been having major discussions about this possibility. and so if we can get over those hurdles we may have have that in our future and then finally I wanted to give everyone including the public an update on our vaccines and here in Fayette County, we have had 199,300 fully vaccinated people. And that reflects for 18 and over, that's all adults. We are 73.1% vaccinated. We're going for a higher percentage than that. For our 65 and over population, we are 91.8% vaccinated. So we want to keep this going. We want higher numbers than this. And so we continue to work with a focus on vaccines every day. So thank you very much for that. And now I'll ask if there are any folks from the public who wish to comment on issues not on the agenda. Anybody signed up or here? Okay. I don't see anybody. So with that, it's time to have a motion to adjourn. Thank you very much. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.