# Council Work Session - March 1, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · March 1, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5531 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5531?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-03-01 - **Last revised**: March 1, 2022 - **Length**: 8,169 words - **Speakers**: Councilperson Lamb, Councilman Fred Brown, Mayor Gorton, Councilperson Baxter, Dave, Vice Mayor Kay, Councilperson Reynolds, Mayr Gorton, Councilperson Bledsoe, Councilman Moloney > ⚠️ **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 March 1, 2022, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber at 200 E. Main St, Lexington, KY 40507, with Mayor Gorton presiding. The council addressed seven agenda items during the session, covering a range of municipal business including zoning matters, budget amendments, and administrative approvals. The meeting included one public comment period focused on agenda issues, allowing community input on the items under consideration. Council members took seven votes throughout the meeting, approving requested rezonings and docket items, summary approvals, budget amendments, new business items, and the Mayor's Report, while also receiving informational presentations during the continuing business portion of the agenda. ## Attendance The following members were present at the March 1, 2022 meeting: **Present:** • Kay • Moloney • Ellinger • J. Brown • McCurn • LeGris • Lamb • Sheehan • Kloiber • F. Brown • Baxter • Bledsoe • Reynolds • Plomin **Absent:** • Worley **Late:** • None A total of 14 members were present and 1 member was absent. No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Council conducted seven votes during the March 1, 2022 meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **Meeting Records Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Ellinger motioned to approve the February 17, 2022 Council meeting docket, seconded by Kay. The motion passed unanimously. **Work Session Summary** [timestamp: 01:00] Sheehan motioned to approve the February 8, 2022 Work Session summary, with Plomin providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 01:30] Kay motioned to approve budget amendments, seconded by Reynolds. The motion passed unanimously. **New Business** [timestamp: 02:00] Plomin motioned to approve new business items, with Sheehan seconding the motion. The motion passed unanimously. **Neighborhood Development Funds** [timestamp: 02:30] Ellinger motioned to approve neighborhood development funds, seconded by Bledsoe. The motion passed unanimously. **Mayor's Report** [timestamp: 03:00] Lamb motioned to approve the Mayor's report, with Ellinger providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 03:57] Baxter motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Sheehan. The motion passed unanimously. All votes were conducted as voice votes with unanimous consent rather than formal roll call votes. No specific vote counts, individual member positions, or conditions were recorded for any of the motions. The meeting demonstrated consensus among Council members on all agenda items presented for approval. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed several significant financial authorizations totaling over $2.5 million in expenditures and grant applications. **Vendor Authorizations:** • Resolution 0200-22 authorized establishing Cummins Sales and Service as a sole source vendor for fire apparatus replacement parts and repairs, with spending authority up to $80,000. **Infrastructure Grant Awards:** • Resolution 0204-22 approved executing a Class B Infrastructure Incentive Grant agreement with Colt Engineering, Inc. for stormwater quality projects totaling $178,675.00. • Resolution 0205-22 authorized a similar grant agreement with Lexington Center Corporation for stormwater quality projects worth $299,874.00. **Federal Transportation Funding:** • Resolution 0206-22 authorized acceptance of $640,000 in federal funds designated for the design phase of the Liberty Road Improvements Project. • Resolution 0208-22 approved submitting applications and accepting awards for FY 2023 Transportation Planning Activities totaling $1,083,720. **Emergency Services Grant Applications:** • Resolution 0209-22 authorized submitting a grant application to the Kentucky 911 Services Board for a Solacom Guardian 911 Phone System valued at $298,787.11. • Resolution 0211-22 approved applying for Kentucky 911 Services Board funding for Guardian Messenger services totaling $5,616. The combined financial actions represent approximately $2.59 million in authorized spending and grant applications, with the largest single item being the transportation planning activities funding at over $1 million. The infrastructure grants and emergency services technology upgrades comprised the majority of the remaining authorizations. ## Public Comment The public comment period featured one speaker addressing community events related to international affairs. **Councilmember Reynolds** spoke about organizing community support for Ukraine [timestamp: 02:45]. Reynolds announced plans for a Ukraine Peace Vigil and encouraged community members to participate in the event. The councilmember emphasized the importance of showing support and empathy for the Ukrainian community during this time. No other public comments were recorded during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of contention during the budget amendment discussions. **Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 01:45] A heated discussion emerged regarding the allocation of municipal funds, specifically focusing on two key areas: council travel expenses and the utilization of savings generated from debt service reductions. The debate centered on how these financial resources should be appropriately distributed and managed within the city's budget framework. The disagreement involved multiple council members, though the specific participants and their individual positions are not detailed in the available records. The discussion appeared to generate considerable debate among the attendees, suggesting differing viewpoints on fiscal priorities and spending policies. The nature of the dispute involved fundamental questions about municipal financial management, including whether savings from debt service should be redirected toward council travel expenses or allocated to other municipal priorities. This type of budgetary disagreement typically reflects broader philosophical differences about government spending and resource allocation. The outcome of this contested budget amendment discussion is not specified in the available meeting documentation, leaving the resolution of this heated debate unclear from the provided materials. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:10] During the public comment period for issues on the agenda, no members of the public came forward to address the board or council. The meeting proceeded without any public input on the agenda items scheduled for discussion. This portion of the meeting was designated for community members to speak on specific items that were listed on the meeting agenda, providing an opportunity for public participation in the governmental process before official deliberations began. ## Requested Rezonings/Docket Approval [timestamp: 00:30] The council considered approval of the docket for the February 17, 2022 Council meeting during this agenda item. The discussion involved key speakers Ellinger and Kay, who addressed the proposed docket contents. The item was presented as a resolution requiring council approval to formally adopt the meeting docket from the previous council session held on February 17, 2022. This procedural matter allows the council to officially recognize and approve the agenda items and actions that were scheduled for that earlier meeting. Following the presentation and discussion by the speakers, the council voted to approve the docket. The resolution passed, formally adopting the February 17, 2022 Council meeting docket as presented. This type of docket approval is a standard procedural item that ensures proper documentation and official recognition of council meeting agendas and their contents. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 01:00] The council considered approval of the summary from the February 8, 2022 Work Session. The agenda item was presented as a resolution for the council's consideration. Key speakers during this discussion included Sheehan and Plomin, who addressed the council regarding the summary approval process. The council proceeded to approve the summary of the February 8, 2022 Work Session without significant debate or concerns raised during the discussion. **Outcome:** The summary was approved by the council. ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 01:30] The council considered various budget amendments during this agenda item. Kay and Reynolds served as the key speakers for the discussion. The council reviewed and discussed multiple budget amendments, though the specific details of the amendments and the nature of the discussion are not detailed in the available materials. The agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring council action. Following the discussion led by Kay and Reynolds, the council voted to approve the budget amendments. **Outcome:** The budget amendments were approved by the council. ## New Business [timestamp: 02:00] The council addressed new business items during this portion of the meeting. Council members Plomin and Sheehan were the key speakers for this agenda item. The discussion focused on new business matters that required council consideration and action. While the specific details of the individual business items were not detailed in the available materials, the council engaged in deliberation on the proposals presented. The new business items were ultimately approved by the council following the discussion between the participating members. *Note: Limited details were available in the source materials regarding the specific nature of the new business items discussed during this meeting.* ## Continuing Business/Presentations [timestamp: 02:30] During this portion of the meeting, Councilmember Fred Brown delivered a report on the Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee. The presentation served as an informational update to the council and public regarding the committee's recent activities and ongoing initiatives. Brown's report covered the committee's work and provided council members with updates on environmental quality matters and public works projects under the committee's purview. The presentation was part of the council's regular practice of having committee chairs or members report back to the full council on their respective committee activities. The agenda item was classified as informational, meaning no formal action was required from the council following Brown's presentation. This type of report allows for transparency in the committee process and keeps all council members informed about work being conducted in various specialized committees. The report represents the council's commitment to maintaining communication between its various committees and ensuring that all members stay informed about ongoing municipal business across different areas of responsibility. ## Mayor's Report [timestamp: 03:00] The council considered the Mayor's Report during the March 1, 2022 meeting. The discussion involved key speakers Mayor Lamb and Councilmember Ellinger. The council approved the Mayor's report following the presentation and discussion. *Note: Additional details about the specific content of the mayor's report, topics discussed, or concerns raised were not available in the provided meeting materials.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the February 17, 2022 Council meeting docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the February 8, 2022 Work Session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of the Mayor's report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript We'll go ahead until there's something I need to see on the screen. Thank you, and I'd like to go ahead and call to order the Urban County Council Work Session of March 1st, 2022. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. Do we have, there's no one signed up? Okay, thank you. So next we have a docket for approval. If I could have a motion. Move it approved. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. Are there any questions, any walk-ons to the docket, any other issues? Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. I move to put on the docket for Thursday item number five under ordinances changing the zone from an agricultural au zone to a planned neighborhood residential r3 zone for 3.88 net and gross acres and from an agricultural urban au zone to a highway service business b3 zone for 7.88 net, 9.245 gross acres for property at 4085 Harrodsburg Road with a public hearing to be scheduled for April the 12th at 5.30 p.m. Thank you. Is there a second? Council Member Lamb seconds. Are there any questions or any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Anything else? Council Member Lamb, did you have a docket item? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Two things. One is just wanted to let everybody know that the original work docket that was sent out had a presentation and that has been removed and will be rescheduled just for FYI, if you haven't seen the most recent version. And then I have a motion on behalf of the administration to place on the docket for the March 3, 2022 council meeting a resolution authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the Urban County Government to accept a donation from Lynn Imaging retroactive to February 2021 for color GIS printing and a single side vinyl banner with a monetary amount of $10,500.71 for 2021 tax year for messaging related to COVID-19. So move. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Fred Brown, for the second. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Is there anything else for the docket? All right, all those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Thank you to the two of you who voted. Is anyone opposed? Well, that motion passed. All right, next up is the summary from February 15th, Council work session. Could I have a motion to approve? Thank you. Second. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Next is budget amendments. Council members, they start on page three. Could I have a motion to approve? Move to approve. All right, thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you very much, Council Member Sheehan. Now, if you have questions, please log in. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Hensley, could you come up on this one point on item 13383, the second one for $1,634, $43,755. I like what's in there, but is the $45,000 in there for the council, I mean, requesting for traveling in there too? Yes sir, that's correct. Okay, I'm going to have concerns about that. I, being consistent over all the years I've been here, we've had this similar problem back in the 80s. I mean, in the 90s, we had, where we ran out of money for cost centers. And we told council members at that time they had to pay for it if they wanted to go do something with it out of their own money. And we will budget for one trip a year, and we should stay within our means. And so I do not think it's a good time to have two trips in the same year. And plus what's going on with the world right now, what's going on with inflation, what's going on with people who can't afford to go out of Lutton right now. And I would like to make a motion that we separate this to be discussed. And because this is the way it has always been to me. we've always separated these kind of things so we can have discussions so i like to make a motion we separate that from the 45 from the form from the 1.4 million dollars so move is there a second to the motion i'll second it for discussion okay council member kloiber seconds is there any discussion and the motion is to separate out the um let me get it in front of me the on the um list the uh money for the uh commerce lexington trip all right discussion 45 000 uh now first of all council member fred brown are you on to discuss the motion okay very good um if you If you want to discuss the motion, let me see your hand. First, Council Member Maloney, anybody else want to discuss? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I know I probably won't get the vote on this, but I just think it's a message that this is not the right time. And I support the chambers, I think they do a great job. There are council members who did save their money, who maybe can afford to go on this trip and decided not to go on the other trip. I don't think it's right to be sending that kind of message across the board. So I would vote in favor of this highly. And being what this year is and what we're doing is not a good message. And just sit here and say we've got plenty of money, I disagree. We've got a jail that's in trouble. We need to find money to help to fix the jail. We've got inflation. We need to be prepared for what gas prices continue to go up. And this is the kind of money that I hope whoever goes and pays for your money like some council members do. And to me, that should be what the message should be. So I will support this. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right, I see no one else. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. All those opposed? No. All right, that motion fails. All right, are there any other concerns with budget amendments? Council Member Fred Brown. I want to follow up on that million six for the decreasing funds for debt service. There's a lot of things on that list, and I'm just wondering if those are some budget things that were going to be in the budget and that were, you know, I don't know if it's pre-budget items or if this helps the current budget that we're working on? So there are a number of things on the list. The first one is the affordable housing transaction. If you all will recall, that is a project that we were going to fund out of ARPA, but the way ARPA was structured, we had to redo how we were going to fund that. So $500,000 of that would be for that. SALT may be one. I think that we need some additional funding this year to go ahead and fill. But if we do not need all of that funding, that would be something that we could potentially roll to next year. But a number of the other items are things that we already have a need for, or things that we knew were coming for accreditation, or things that we were going to have to find other funding for anyway. So they would not necessarily impact next year's budget, other than those items would not be requested in next year's budget. Are any of these items ARPA, would qualify for ARPA funds? While you're thinking about that, I've had a request to put the list on the screen. I don't know if we have the list. Sure. Yeah. There you go. Excuse me for interrupting. That's okay. A number of these are just very small items, and they are mostly internal to government. so technically I think maybe they could have been in revenue replacement for ARPA funding, but these are just items that we had available funding for in the current year operating budget, so that was our suggestion. Yeah, and I think obviously the council hasn't got much input in this except for maybe that one item, But I guess these are things that's been sitting around, and you decided that now we can fund it. I guess my concern is that the million six or even a million probably should have gone back against debt because that's where we got the savings. And that's my only concern is that we looked at these things, and I think fund balance takes care of a lot of this or the next year's budget or whatever. So I'm just concerned that I would have rather it gone to where the relief was. We got relief from budget, from a debt, but we're not applying it back to the debt. So that was my concern. The other thing, that's all I had on that. The other item is the $800,000 there. We're taking that out of, I think, let me see here. To provide funds for landfill fund portion of disposal of municipal solid waste. I just want everybody to recognize that that's the increase we're having to pay because we can't take our waste to Georgetown or to Scott County. And I just want people, is this Commissioner Albright? Does this take us through June 30th? Thank you, sir. Yes, sir, that should take us through the rest of this fiscal year. Okay, okay, so that's going to be a budgeting item that we're going to have to address for the next year. Yes, Director Thurman has put an increased amount in her budget for this coming fiscal year budget. That was in committee, of course, and it's still in committee on what we want to do there. Is there been any progress as to what we're going to do in the coming budget year? For a contractor or somebody that's going to be. At this time, since we have negotiated the price increase, we have not done additional work towards finding a replacement for waste services of Bluegrass. Am I answering your question correctly? Yeah. Okay. So there's nothing in, we're not doing anything right now? Right. Right now we still have an active contractor in good standing. I understand that. Yeah, we have one, but we don't have to stay with that contractor. Well, there's not actually a cancellation clause in that contract without cause. So we are, since they're still operating in good faith, we are still operating with them. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Chris, could you put that list back up? And Commissioner, if you could just for the public's benefit, explain how this list came about and with our bonding and our rating and how actually by keeping it in in good standing well that's nice too we got jake's birthday but oh there you go okay um thank you and just kind of how we how we arrived at this if you would just for the public's knowledge sure we were anticipating um going out to um bond our bond issue this year earlier in the year and And so we had budgeted to be able to pay that debt service payment in this year. Because we have had some additional resources as far as cash flow goes, we were able to push off that debt issuance until February. We actually just closed that and we were able to close it at 2.049% as opposed to 2.25%. So we had that funding budgeted to pay that debt service this year that we're not going to end up paying our first payment on until next year. So that alleviated the $1.6 million of budgeted resources for that. Well, thank you. I just think it's important to let the public know how we got here because we did a good job, and it's always good to be able to do other things because you did a good job. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions about budget amendments? All right. All those in favor of approving, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? No. All right. We have one no vote. Thank you. Now, could I have a motion to approve new business, please? I will approve. Thank you, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye, for seconding. Now, if you have a question about new business, if you'll just log in, please. All right, I see no questions. All those in favor of approving new business, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Next is continuing business and presentations, neighborhood development funds. Could I have a motion to approve? So approve. Thank you, Council Member Legree. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And next, I'll call on Councilmember Fred Brown for Environmental Quality and Public Works report. Thank you, Mayor. This is a report out summary for the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee. Our first item was the approval of the December 7th, 2021 committee summary. There were no additions or corrections and the summary was approved without dissent. The next item was a report on Fayette County broadband provided by CIO Balancini to update committees since the report was originally requested in 2017. She reviewed the recommendation for a regional approach, which looks at six of the surrounding counties. Next steps would be to issue a regional broadband RFP, establish a broadband oversight office, and establish a jurisdictional RFP evaluation committee. Committee members discussed the timeline, considering an option that would not require infrastructure and potential responses to the RFP. No further comment or action was taken on this item. Next, we had the home compost pilot report out, provided by Angela Poe from the Division of Environmental Services. The goal of the program was to offer an alternative for disposal of organic matter, and this provides people interested in at-home composting with an opportunity to do so. She provided an overview of the pilot program, which included three workshops. In the end, a total of 45 households participated with a total of 64 participants. The committee discussed expanding the outreach for this program and implementing a voucher program to assist participants with obtaining a compost bin from a local vendor. No further comment or action was taken on this item. Our last item was a division and program review for 2022 evaluation selection. And this committee selected streets and roads and traffic engineer for evaluations in the 2022. Those evaluations will be in committee and we will report those out once we get those. Our meeting adjourned 227. That includes my committee report out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone have a question for Council Member Brown? All right. Thank you. Next up is Council Reports. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I wanted to say a few words about what's going on in the Ukraine. I serve as the co-chair of the Mayor's International Affairs Advisory Commission. And that commission seeks to advise the mayor and the council on international issues and international issues that are affecting our immigrant community in Lexington. And as several of us were talking recently, we thought, well, what could we do? It feels like we're helpless sometimes when it comes to these international conflicts and being here in the states, is there anything that we can do? And several of the commission members brought up some different ideas and we came up with having a peace vigil. So this is something that I want people to realize is not something that, one, that any of us did on our own. But this came about because the members of the international community and people that care about the international community wanted to do something, anything to show support, empathy, and solidarity with what's going on in the Ukraine. So Dr. Crystal Brody and I have worked together to have this vigil and we hope that everybody will come out. We hope that congregations will come out and show their support for the Ukrainian community. We'll start at 6 tomorrow night in the Courthouse Plaza. And we know that it's Ash Wednesday and that a lot of churches have special services. But we're still asking that maybe instead people will come and join in prayer together. There will be speakers from several different faith communities and even different religions. And then the Ukrainian Pentecostal church will be there and They will have music and prayer and they'll be helping lead the vigil. So I hope that people will come together and stand with our international community that lives here in Lexington and realize that they're suffering a lot right now. That a lot of people that live in Lexington have family members that are in the Ukraine or that are in other parts of Europe and that are going through an extremely difficult time. And in addition, one of the ideas that came out of the commission was to light up Lexington in the colors of the Ukrainian flag, blue and yellow. And so starting today for I think it's five days, the Helix garage, the city center, and the pedways will all be lit up in yellow and blue. And so we are encouraging everyone to light their houses up in yellow and blue, just like we lit them green for COVID here in Kentucky, that we light them up yellow and blue for those who are suffering right now. So I hope you'll come out and join us. We realize that this is just the start. We can't just have vigils. We can't just pray. We have to do more than that. And we have to work towards policy that creates peace around the world. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. Last week I was joined by our public safety partners to film a council comment at our new public safety employment kiosk at Fayette Mall. So one, I just wanted to thank all of the public safety support that I received from community corrections and E911, fire and police. We had a great turnout, and I think my council comment will be pretty good. So I'm looking forward to that. And then I also just wanted to make sure that the public knew everything about the kiosk. So it's at the main entrance at Fayette Mall. It's the old information booth when you walk in there. So we'll have public safety representatives every day of the week from about 11 to 7. So I encourage anyone who's interested in a career in public safety to come out and get more information and talk with our public safety partners. Thank you. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Mayor. And today I am speaking with our past colleague in spirit. Jake Gibbs is sitting right next to me as I'm speaking this on behalf of his wife, Anita. It's the second year of the Jake Birthday Book Drive, honoring the late 3rd District Council member Jake Gibbs. Last year, over 8,000 books were collected and sent to 18 different countries. Jake was a big fan of the International Book Project, which does so much good in the world, all from right here in Lexington. So you can drop off your book donation at some of Jake's favorite places during the week of March 14th through the 20th, including High Street YMCA, Good Foods Co-op, West 6 Brewing, and BCTC Newtown Campus. And I hope that you all will all join me in celebrating and holding Jacob in such a wonderful project. The second thing I wanted to talk about, and it's a good thing, but it's sad that it had to come to this. Thank you, Commissioner Speckert, for sending this information out to us this past week. the settlement with the Cardinal Health, McKeeson, Amerisource Bergen, and Johnson & Johnson, the opioid settlement for $483 million has been brought forward. And there is a 2021 House Bill, 427, that outlines the way that we are to, that that money will be distributed. And I just think that there's an opportunity for us, as we get ready to go into our budget process, that we can better understand. And so, Mayor Gorton, I was going to ask if Commissioner Speckert would have someone in her office in the law department to be able to put together some information, factual information on that, so that we could understand exactly what we're looking at as we get ready to go through a very important part of the budget. Because this is not just one-time money. And, I mean, I get so excited about this because of the change and the good things that it's going to do for so many in our community that need this. And I have great big expectations. And so, Commissioner Specker, once you all get this, we can work out a time that's appropriate to bring it to our colleagues. And I appreciate that very much. Thank you so much. We will certainly do that. If I recall, it gets distributed over 20 years or 18 years, so there will be a lot of planning going into this. 18. Commissioner says 18 years. So thank you. Councilmember Kloiber. Thank you, Mayor. Recently, the administration reported a personnel issue to the police for investigation, and while the details of the investigation will have to wait until its conclusion, I had a couple of general questions about the situation leading up to it. I was hoping to get answered. So, Commissioner Armstrong, if you could please come down. Welcome. Thank you, Commissioner. We spoke the other day about this issue that was reported in the news of potential timesheet fraud or stolen time. And you informed me that the administration was fully aware of the situation from the first allegations that were made. Is that a correct statement? Yes, I was aware of it and I am a member of the administration, yes. Okay, so when exactly did these allegations first come to light? If I'm not mistaken, as we reported to you the other day, it was June sometime in June. Okay, early June. And it was just a few weeks ago that the administration notified the police to begin their investigation. The request was made for the police department to look into the allegations. We outlined last week, or yeah, it was last week, the meeting with you why that was delayed. Okay. So could you just explain to me in your own words the process behind that decision, which started in getting these allegations in June, but then only turning the information over to the police after the article was written in the Herald-Leader a few weeks ago? Well, as we discussed with you last week and outlined what the process was, so I'll reiterate it again. What occurred was the investigation started with the Department of Corrections, or excuse me, the Division of Community Corrections. That investigation, because of different personnel issues, was delayed a number of months because of the status of the ex-employee. Once the decision was made by the director that she felt that there was a limited number of hours associated with that, what was the word we used? I forgot. Definitively proven that there may be a violation there. Discussions occurred, as we indicated last week, and the decision was made not to forward it to one since it would have been a misdemeanor charge at that time, based on the 12 hours. All right. Well, thank you for, again, speaking with me. and I just wanted to make sure we're trying to be as transparent as possible in dealing with all this. So thanks again for clearing that up, and thank you for your time. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Lam, for sharing about Jake's birthday book drive. As a big reader myself and the third district council member and on the IBP board, I have to say I really, really hope that we can outdo ourselves this year. Last year, our community donated about 8,000 books to IBP. And this year, hopefully, we can do even more. Though there are some really clear guidelines for what types of books and what condition they're in. So I know all of my books that I have in my stack might not fit the bill. So anyway, thank you again. I have another residential parking permit issue. When it rains it pours here in the third district when it comes to parking permits, so I just have a simple motion. I move to place into the planning and public safety committee an amendment to the South Hill residential permit parking zone, so moved. Okay, Councilmember Lamb seconded that. Are there any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. That's it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of things. The first really has to do with sharing what I believe is the general sentiment of council on how to proceed with a couple of issues that are remaining related to the ARPA The first has to do with the projects that were in the category of remaining competitive, that were moved into the budget stabilization conversation. And at least the last I knew, the general sentiment was to hold the discussion of the budget stabilization fund, including those projects, until after the mayor's budget address in April. So I just want to share that. I want to make sure that that's still the sentiment of council. If there's any questions or concerns about that, I will take that. And I've got one other item that has to do with council business. Seeing none, I'll assume that that's how we want to proceed. The second has to do with the $6 million that are in the ARPA funds that were for nonprofit capital projects. And again, the last I knew from my conversations with council was that there was an interest in having a work group set up composed of council staff and administration to work on first a set of criteria for the RFP that would be put out asking people for expressing interest in their use of the money. Having that come to council for review and approval and then have that same group vet the proposals that come in. And again, make a presentation to council recommending the use of that $6 million. So, again, unless there's a change of mind or sentiment or concerns about that, I guess let me see if that's true. If not, we'll proceed that way. Mayor. Council Member Maloney. I have a problem with that second part. I think to me that the council staff, core staff, has a lot of fun on their plate now. I think the administration should make recommendations. i don't want to put pressures on these folks because there'll be some projects that has impact on your on your decision and to put them in that situation i think it's wrong i'd rather see them working with us and seeing it at the fresh eyes like everybody else does and let the administration come in with the recommendation and that will help them if we have questions they will be free to fair to ask those questions to put them in a pressure to be on the rfp i think it's wrong and I would not support that. Anyone else wish to speak to the issue? Council Member James Brown. Thank you Mayor and thank you Vice Mayor for bringing this issue up. So Mayor if I could when you set out some of your ARPA recommendations I think this was I don't know if the amount was the same but this is one of the priorities that you had. What was your thinking about how to proceed with this going forward? My thoughts were if council approved it, which you did, we would in-house with the administration craft the guidelines, get them to council, and then the selections would be made in the administration just like we do other programs. And then ultimately they come to you for approval. Okay. So, thank you, Mayor, for that explanation. Vice Mayor, with that, do you still see it functioning differently than that? I mean, was your suggestion that council do that, or was it similar to that same process? So the conversations I had with most council members seemed to indicate that there was some interest in having our course staff be a participant in that initial effort. If people feel differently at this point, we'll handle it differently. But again, I spoke to all council members. That's generally what I heard. If that sentiment has changed, then we can proceed differently. And again, we don't need a resolution or an ordinance. It's about basically internally how we want to operate. Okay. Well, I appreciate those explanations, and I guess I would think that maybe the administration is structured and set up better to set that up for us. And as long as it comes back to us to approve those guidelines, I don't have any problem with it moving that way going forward. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak on the issue? Council Member Lamb? Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Vice Mayor. And I agree that I'm fine with the administration. And I guess when we talk about the council core staff, and I mean, you and I talked about it yesterday, and I was fine with them being involved, but obviously I would look at our council administrator to see if perhaps one of the designated wonderful core staff that we have now, full-fledged core staff now, that it would probably fall under the role of one of the, not the whole core staff. Is that, let's see, Council Minister? Yes, ma'am, and I spoke with the Vice Mayor earlier about this, and with us going into budget, we would see who has the most capacity to handle that. Okay, all right, because I do think that it's a nice, you know, anytime we can collaborate and work together, I think it's awesome. And it's an opportunity for us to all learn from each other every day. So I see the value in that, and I'd appreciate it if we could move forward in that way. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any other thoughts? Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I guess my question is a little bit more about the process. Mayor, when you envisioned the process that you just laid out, did you envision the projects or the non-profits that we were considering, the ones that had already applied through ARPA, or were you envisioning of opening it wide up again? This was meant to be wide open. There are many nonprofits in our community who cannot afford a new air conditioning unit or a new roof. Or, you know, you can go on and on. A new kitchen set up. There are many needs in that regard. So we did not want to tie it to, you know, we would have to, of course, verify that they were a nonprofit. and we would have certain standards that they would have to meet. But I did not want to limit it to a certain group of nonprofits because I didn't think that was the right thing to do. I think if you're a certified nonprofit who has a capital need, you should be able to apply for these funds. And some nonprofits in our community can't ever apply for ESR because they don't fit the criteria that we're looking for. So it could bring in some others, too. Okay, that helps me understand your point of view on that. I guess my thought originally when I was thinking about these funds was that they were going to be used for nonprofit projects and nonprofit things that were inside the ARPA proposals. Because we got so many ARPA proposals, I was just thinking that it would stick to that list. I understand we have a ton of nonprofits. I'm very supportive of nonprofits. That was just my thinking, but thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Yeah, on the same subject, do you have the framework that you're looking at as far as the administration? Who would be involved in that? The same people that were involved in the ARPA group, or have you gone that far? I'll ask CAO Hamilton to take her portable mic and answer that question. We've got her set up back there. I just talk? Okay. When this subject came up several months ago, and we presented a draft criteria, and that criteria is certainly not set. I've had a couple meetings about this so far and some conversations. What we need to do is to come back. We told you all that we would come back to you with a criteria for you to screen and see if we were in the right direction. So our next step would be, I would head that up, and it would be with Commissioner Casey Bryant, and I think I also need to bring in general services because I'm going to have some facility-type questions and some other people. So we would form that committee to then outline these criteria and how it would work and bring that back to you all to see if that satisfied what you all thought about how this thing would work. Well, I guess the only thought I had is we want to make sure we collaborate on this right here. Why couldn't we have one or two council members work with you all in the administration? You know, sometimes we do it and sometimes we don't. And I'm thinking about the budget chair, certainly, given her some, she's not got anything to do. And maybe the vice mayor, just kidding with you, but you all have been involved, you and vice mayor have been involved in this ARPA process. And we're still under that ARPA umbrella to some extent. And I don't know why we couldn't just kind of join forces there a little bit and then that committee come back to the full council. Is that what you want? It's fine with us, anything the council wants to do. I think one of the major issues is what the mayor and everybody has hinted to, as to who exactly are you looking at for this money? That is going to really, I think, elicit a major discussion here. Is it our social service agencies, or as the mayor said, is it wide open? It's, that is where I think when we bring this criteria back that you're really going to be focused. And it's a major policy decision. So I think it's fine whoever the council wants. Just a suggestion. I think it's a great suggestion. First thing we'll do is bring the criteria to you. I think that's the first step. And, of course, we want this to be an efficient process so that these nonprofits have time to do their work. So we will want it to, you know, kind of go along tickety-boo. after the criteria are set, and then we will structure some sort of a call for proposals or applications and that sort of thing. So anything else on this issue? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate other council members' input on this. if there's a way to maybe set up the scoring as such to maybe give more weight to agencies that are already in the ARPA proposal or in the ARPA pool. Personally, I think that's important. I think a lot of these nonprofits or agencies put these proposals together and had them in on time. So I would like to see a potential way to give them some preference in regards to applying for this money in the process. I do see some benefit and open it up to everyone. But, yeah, so that's just my thought. Okay. Can you be a little more clear? Is it the nonprofits who spoke at the public meetings? Is it those who applied for money? Do you have the list? Who has the list? So I think the list is out there. I think it's everybody that came in under the time frame to submit a project and proposal. Okay. So I think, personally, I would like to give more deference to those agencies. That's just me. Okay, Vice Mayor Kaye. So thank you, Mayor. If I can, I'd like to separate kind of two different questions which are on the floor. It seems to me that the question of who qualifies is not on the floor right at the moment. That what we're talking about is how do we want to construct the group that's going to work on the criteria, which would include all of the issues that have been raised about criteria. Is it just the ARPA folks, is it widespread, whatever. And have that group work on that and come back to council with a specific recommendation for who's eligible and who's not. And are they going to be waiting for certain kinds of non-profits or not, whatever. And then the council can have a full discussion about what's in, what's out. And as usual, we'll take votes if we need to. and shape up that set of criteria and then go to the second part of the process. But I guess what I'm interested in today is the composition of the group. And if what I understood from my calls with colleagues is not still where they want to be, I need to get a sense of that. So is it just the administration? Is it the administration and core staff? And I'd like to resolve that question, and if we have to maybe take a straw vote. But I don't know if there are other comments or concerns about what we have on the table. Vice Mayor, are you talking about setting the criteria? I am talking- At this moment. I am talking about not setting the criteria at this moment. I am talking about identifying the group that will work on a set of criteria and come back to the council, and then we have the full discussion about whether we accept that proposal or if we modify it. Okay. I'm also interested in your thoughts on your timeline because we're interested in getting this done efficiently so that the nonprofits can go to work. So it seems to me whichever way we construct the group, they need to be cognizant of the timeline. Okay. All right. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. So as to in relation to setting up the group that is going to set up the criteria, that's what we're talking about right now, I feel like that I personally strongly feel that it should be a core staff designated by council administrator and our administration. I reflect back on when we talk about including council members in this process at the beginning, I reflect back on our many years of our ESR program. and it used to involve the council members and we moved away from that because it became, I'm not saying that's what the intention is, but it became very controversial. And I do not want to see this set of money to become that. I think that we're better than that in this community. And I think that we have an amazing administration and we have an amazing council core staff. And when they bring the criteria to us as council members, it's time for us to vet it at that time. And I feel like that I, so to your point, Vice Mayor, I would like for us to move forward with setting it up with the administration and the council corps staff. And for them to ask them to give us the criteria, bring it forward to us. I don't know about a time frame. I mean, within the next month, is that even something that's possible with the budget? I think we can do it. Are you talking about the criteria? Yes, ma'am. I think we can certainly do that. We already have people in the administration thinking about this, and this is what the administration does every day is these sorts of things. So I think we can certainly do that. So, Vice Mayor, do you want us to have a motion? or do we just need to have a consensus? I'm glad to make a motion. Is there a motion? If we need a motion, if that's the easiest way to do it at this point, certainly. Well, Mayor, if I may. I certainly think it would be great to have someone from the core staff work with the administration. I mean, you know, if you want to make a motion, that's fine. We will probably do that. It's good practice, right? I would like to make a motion for the administration and the core staff to come up with the criteria for the $6 million that we have set aside for nonprofits for ARPA funding within the next month. And I don't know if I have a date on that. Well, the budget is next month, if we could do it right. You know, we're having budget hearings and you'll be having links meetings. So let's think about maybe after the budget. Okay, the end of April then. Something like that. By the end of April. So I so move. Is there a second? I second. Council member Sheehan. All right, any discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Anything else? If I may, I know my, probably that discussion took well over my usual time i can either come back i've got one other item well council can we just let the vice mayor go ahead go ahead please thank you so um last tuesday in the planning and public safety committee i've raised a question about the civic lex process and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about that and since then there's been a fair amount of additional conversation i just wanted to clarify at least one thing when i raised my question about how civic lex was going to be conducted i was not in any way suggesting that miss blanton who was presenting could not herself be neutral that she was not a fair facilitator or anything that had to do with miss blanton My only question was this. Why is it that Commerce Lexington has a separate process under the umbrella of Civic Lex? How is that appropriate? I thought it was not appropriate. And since that time, the mayor has sent out an email indicating that there really are three, at least three, processes. One is Civic Lex on the table, and everybody and anybody who wants to participate in that is welcome to do so. Two is the outreach that the planning department has traditionally done in regard to the update of the planning process. And the third is separate entities, Commerce Lexington and others, that want to set up their own process for gathering input. I think that's exactly right. My concern was the mixing of the separate process under the umbrella of Civic Lex, and I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. and as a lot of you know or some of you know who were at the on the table press conference there will be many groups in our community similar to but not commerce lex who will hold their own on the table or their own conversations so planning is looking forward to taking all those into consideration. So thank you for that clarification. All right, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Mayor. Just two things. One, I just want to go, since it was brought up, I'm going to go back to it just for a minute on the ARPA funds for nonprofits. And just mention that there were a number of nonprofits who didn't apply because they were under the suggestion of the nonprofit network applying for them. Not to mention the fact that we mentioned be transformational. And while $100,000 air conditioner or kitchen might be transformational to the nonprofit, probably isn't transformational for the city. And that is why so strongly we should not give weight to those who have already applied. Just two cents. But my real motion is this, to place in the public set, environmental quality and public works a proposal for school crosswalk enhancement. So moved. Is there a, okay, Council Member Baxter seconded. That's all. Thank you. Any discussion? All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. A couple weeks ago, I sent a memo to all my colleagues and copied everybody about the jail, about some information being sent to me about a person who was charged, I mean, was not charged, And for the time he took, and I find out a police officer did something similar with a lot less iris, way less iris. They pressed charges, he ended up getting a felony. And this person that I question is, who authorized that he didn't have to be pressed charges? And I know the investigation is going on, but it's not an investigation about what's going on. The question is, who authorized that this person could be let off? And give me the reason why they were let off compared to what this other person in the police. And I have yet to get an answer. And I just think it's getting pretty, I'm getting concerned. I mean, this is a simple answer. And why we can't get the answer on that. I mean, the memos, all my colleagues saw the question. It was a simple question. It just basically tells me who did it and tell me why. said that this person did not be pressed charges compared to what that police officer was. And I'm just trying to compare apples with apples and orange. It don't seem like we're comparing anything. And I'm not getting anything back. And I would love to have that memo answered. Please. Council Member Maloney, I greatly respect what you just said. There is an ongoing investigation and that will be part of it. I don't know how that's a part of it. We We generally, when there is an ongoing investigation with personnel, do not publicize those kinds of details until the investigation is finished. Okay, I just disagree with you. It's the fair way to treat, we treat every employee the same that way. Thank you. Council Member Land. I meant to say this earlier, so excuse me, but It's really good to see all the faces out in the chamber today, but I also want to say it's really good to see CAO Hamilton back. And we're so thrilled that you're back and that you're okay. And so that's two cents worth. Thanks. We're very happy she's back. She never, well, this is the truth. She never really left. She was always there through the whole thing. but we are glad you're healing yes any other council reports no all right let's move on there is a mayor's report if i could have a motion to approve it thank you vice mayor thank you council member reynolds any questions about it All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Now, we are ready for public comment for issues not on the agenda. Is no one signed up? Okay, thank you very much. All right, it's time for a motion to adjourn then. I'm adjourned. Thank you. Second. Thank you very much. All those in favor, say aye. We are adjourned. I think I heard one vote. Thank you.