Music Thank you. I'm sorry. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. Budget Committee of the Whole, May 31st, 2022. And the first item on our agenda is the adoption of the revenue estimate. Commissioner, welcome. Good morning, everyone. We just have a couple of quick slides for the FY23 revenue estimate for next year. We've given a historical look back at where we've been. You can see we're on that, at the very far end there, that large uptick. Our FY23 proposed revenue estimate represents 11% increase over our 22 adopted budget. And then we have also prepared a revised estimate for 22. There you go. So you will see that our, based on our revised estimate, our 23 projection is 4.9% higher than our revised 22 estimate. Any questions? Council members, questions, comments? Seeing none. I'm sorry, Council Member Maloney. I have a question for you on the revenue. Yes, sir. And that's the highest we've done in a long time. Yes, sir. We usually try to keep it around 3% or something, especially when the University of Kentucky was here a couple months ago. They talked about 3. If we raise this thing to 4.9, my question to you, do you all feel comfortable for next year's budget and the following year's budget that the 4.9 will continue to come in like that? Because we've got to continue to pay for these projects at 4.9% or higher. So I'm very cautious about the 4.9% that you look. I know it's great right now, but I see a turn in the economy now going down. Not just in the cities, but in everybody's pocketbook because of the gas, the food, everything is going way down. And we're sitting here looking at a number that has been the highest we've ever done in a long time. and you all are very confident to sit here and say that you think this budget will continue for next year and the following year at 4.9% because we're going to have to keep paying these bills. I understand. We have sought outside counsel, and our estimates are in collaboration with Dr. Clark from University of Kentucky. We've spent a lot of time on this. We've continued to look at our revenues coming this year, and the majority of our increases that we're recognizing are in our payroll withholdings, which we've seen starting about halfway through last year and continue through this year. So we have tried to be very critical in thinking about these different revenue sources individually instead of as a whole. Some of them we've adjusted quite a bit, and some of them we've not adjusted at all because we haven't seen the growth in some of those items. Let me go back to your comment, how you see this budget as a quilt, and you see the budget stabilization. All these things balance our budget. Let's just get rid of all those things. And you're talking 4.9% increase. Without any of that, are we going to be able to balance our budget with just only that money alone without that other stuff helping us? No, sir. We did not do it before we had any of these one-time funds, and we won't do it after we have these one-time funds. I suspect we'll probably be roughly $20 million short once we don't have these one-time funds. However, we've continued to put off some large items that we need to address, and so we've used our savings this year and some of the items that we have available to us to address what we need to address in this budget. So a lot of this offer money and a lot of this budget stabilization that you all have is going to balance this budget for this year. Next year, that one-time money could very easily be gone, and we'll have to find another way to create more money that economists and people I've talked to think are going to start tanking next year and the following year. And is this the right message we're sending across? I'm not talking, I'm just wondering myself, that we're sending across this city that we know for a fact that it's probably going to tank. And we're going to be sitting here spending all this money and have no one-time money that we've been used to for the last three years. And the only one-time money that I'm afraid we're going to tap into is our rainy day fund, which basically is for a disaster, like if a tornado or something came through, we can't pay a payroll for a month or something like that, so we have money. So... The alarm system is now complete. The alarm system is back in the normal operating. Please respond and direct it for all of your now. Thank you. May I have your attention? The alarm system is now complete. I am concerned that the only place we're going to get that money is the rainy day fund. And all we need is a vote, is what I've been told. That even though our ancestors told the people who did this long before, always said it was for emergency use only. We have gotten into a habit that I'm concerned that we could support what you're talking about. It's the wrong message we're sending across this city for the next two years when we know for a fact. And this storm is already hitting us. We've already seen the gas prices growing sky high, which I don't think we budget yet for our gas to increase. And I've also seen inflation where food is going real high. So it's affecting my pocket, affecting everybody in this area, and affecting everybody across this city. The message I'm trying to figure out is I am not happy with the 4.9%. If we cannot prove to me that it's going to be here next year. And I'm an economist and all that, I don't see it happen. So I just want to be cautious of what you all just told me. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. to look over the numbers so when we did the adopted it was 377 and then what date did we come up with the estimate then for the 399 when we revised our estimate when we prepared the mayor's proposed budget so that was back in in April then probably okay and that was going to be a 5.8 percent increase about is that from the 377 to 399 yeah the total from adopted to adopted is 11 percent so yeah that's roughly yeah so so the adopted to the estimate for fiscal year 22 was going to be about a 5.8 percent increase and then from our estimate to our estimate for fiscal year 23 is going to be 4.9 because we're going from 399 to 419 and i'm like council member maloney i'm i'm a little concerned seeing what's happening with interest rates going up inflation gas prices all that what what factors are we using that's going to show a continuing five percent increase going forward in our revenues because I I see a you know the word recession has been talked about stagflation has been talked about I mean there's not a lot of positive stuff that's being talked about going forward now we've been very fortunate up to this point but going forward it's it's been more if you listen to the news, listen to CNBC every day, they're always talking about the potential of things turning negative. So how are we justifying an almost 5% increase? Well, the majority of the increase that we have proposed is in our payroll withholdings, and we have seen those continue to grow as those wages have increased in the area. We also are taking a look at some one-time funding that is in here that helps out this budget for next year as it is a reconciliation year with the sheriff and council clerk, and that provides almost $4 million of revenue next year. So there's a couple of different factors at play for next year that are outside of our typical revenue streams. But that won't then go towards fiscal year 24 or 25 going forward, correct? That's correct, and that's why we were very intentional in some of the items that were proposed as far as expenses to try and limit the ongoing costs that we were proposing. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. Is there a motion to approve the revenue estimate? Move for a vote. I'll move. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. I think we have one no. That motion passes. Thank you. Next, the mayor's late items. Director, welcome. Good morning. Vice Mayor, I don't know, do you all want to go through all of them and then go through the approvals or approve them as we go through each fund? What is your preference? I guess I'm inclined to say let's go through them and see if we get approval, but unless there's objection. People want to do these one at a time. We'll just start then. It's a roll. Thank you. So we'll start with the general fund. So with the general fund, the first item we have is we have some updated lease renewals for some of our buildings. And so we have a slight revenue increase. So that's the first item. It's about $25,000 that we would add to the revenue estimate based on new lease agreements. If we go to item number two, when we get to our expenses, we have a decrease in our allocation to the PVA based on a new state law. And you'll see this, you'll see an impact in the urban services fund for this as well. So that was $107,190. And then in the animal care and control agreement, the lease was duplicated. It was in their professional services agreement and in the rent lease line. And so this is a reduction of $68,641 due to that duplication. The Bluegrass Area Development District, the census from 2020, we did not get the updated numbers based on the census for our dues until after the mayor's proposed budget. So our census in Lexington went up, and so therefore our dues to the Bluegrass ad went up. That's $2,689 there. And then item number five, we've got several different things here. These are personnel corrections. The first one is there is a part-time request in youth services that had a typo, and so this is adding the additional expense needed for their part-time for FY23. That's $33,918. We have a net change of a golf position being transferred from Lakeside to Kearney. This is a movement that's happening within parks, and so it's just a net zero. but we're getting it into the right section depth ID for the golf courses. And then after the mayor's proposed budget was released, we got word that there was going to be a managing attorney that was retiring in November or October. And so we are including funds for overlap hire of that position for training for the person who will be taking over that job. And so you'll see this one in several different funds because of the way that laws allocations are split funded. So that was $35,715 in general fund. As well, you all have approved or are approving to abolish a staff assistant and create a skilled trades manager and a parks and rec, to abolish two positions and create a parks and rec superintendent. And so we've got a little bit of savings from the abolish, but then we've got an increased cost based on an increased expense there that's offset by the decreased cost. We have also the public facilities transfer to the courthouse. We've got information from the state after the mayor's proposed budget that the lease payments that we will get have gone down for the courthouse. And so the public facilities corporation needs more of a general fund transfer to make that whole. So all in all, the changes on the expense, we come out positive. And so if you look at the very bottom of your page, the impact on the general fund based on these late items is $141,002. Thank you. Council members, questions, comments? Council member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Where do you propose to get the amount? when you're looking at the net change there, the balance after late items changes of $2,496,000. I'm sorry, I'm in full urban. Let's go back. The $1,331,494. Is that coming out of fund balance, or where's that coming at? That is what the balance at the end of these changes would be. So that's just what. The net change there is the 141? Yes, so we've added $141,000 to the ending fund balance for FY23. Okay, so 1,331,000 will be our new fund balance? Yes, sir. General fund, right? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. Is there a motion to approve the late items? Motion is approved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. So now we have the Urban Services Fund. So with the Urban Services Fund, it's a decrease to the allocation to the PBA, And we're right sizing how we fund the PBA by splitting it evenly between the general fund and urban services fund. So we saw a larger increase in the general fund. It's a slight increase in the urban services fund because we're splitting the cost 50-50 based on how the property taxes come in. Because we get about equal amount to the general fund as we do to the urban services fund. As well, you'll see number nine there. That is the urban services portion for the managing attorney overlap. And so the net change to the urban services fund is $28,954 in increased expenses. Thank you. Questions, comments, council members? Motion to approve. I have a motion and a second. Discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. So once the mayor's proposed budget was done, we just got a revised estimate from the state on our municipal aid program funds. And so the amount that the state is estimating we will receive is increasing by $533,658. So this is an increase of that amount to our MAP funds. Thank you. Council member Fred Brown. On this map fund, have you allocated that $533,000 yet? We have not. We just received word that we were getting them. So we can, in essence, just add to our paving because we're already taking, I'm not sure what the dollar amount is for paving out of the map fund. So this would free up if the council chose to do it, we could free up this $533,000 for paving? Yes, you could. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. Is there a motion to approve? Motion approved. Motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. So, similar fashion to the Municipal Aid Program funds, we also got an updated estimate on the county road funds for FY23 and so they're going to go up $200,816. In addition, on the bottom half of this page, we've got the agreement, the amount that will be allocated based on the agreement with the fiscal court, and so we needed another $1,000. It's in their fund balance to make the agreement, to be able to fund the agreement. So the top portion of this page is adding the revenue, and the bottom portion is budgeting the plan based on agreement with us and the fiscal court. And so that is what this page is doing in the county road program. Thank you. Questions? Seeing none, is there a motion to approve? So moved. If a motion is a second. Further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right, so here in the sanitary sewer fund, we've got another $3,087 for the managing attorney overlap. So it's an additional expense. Thank you. Questions? Is there a motion to approve? So moved. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? motion carries so moving on to the sanitary sewer construction fund this is a reduction in expense based on funds are no longer needed for the west hickman project this was something that director martin mentioned in his budget hearing that might happen but we didn't have the information until after the budget was released so this is just reducing the budget for the west hickman project based on updated information from water quality great thank you questions Move approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. We're moving on to the public facilities fund. This is, we've got a couple things going on here. First of all is the additional transfer over from the general fund of the 27,000 based on the updated agreements from the administrative Office of the Court so we've got the transfer over the additional expense or the reduction and reduction in revenue and then we've got the transfer over of general funds here and in addition number 18 there in 19 those are related to the Kentucky theater the management program the management agreement that was done after the mayor's proposed budget so this is just a net zero we've got their revenue and the expense there so that is what this one is doing so This all is a net zero on this fund. Thank you. Questions? Seeing none, is there a motion? So moved. Motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. All right. Now we have the water quality fund, and this is the overlap funds for the managing attorney. It's an additional $2,205. Thank you. Questions? Seeing none, there's a motion. Move approval. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. And finally, we have the landfill portion of the managing attorney fund, so it's an additional $1,323. Thank you. Move approval. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the discussion of budget stabilization funds. And just to put a little frame around this, Some of the items that are on this list were moved forward from the ARPA discussion, and some were added at a later time. And the postponement of the budget stabilization conversation was to wait to see what the mayor's proposed budget proposed, to see if there was going to be any overlap with what we had on our own list. we decided to incorporate the budget stabilization conversation in this morning's meeting rather than set up a separate meeting. So having said all that, people have now seen the mayor's proposed budget, they've seen the links, they've seen all of the other data, and you have a list in front of you of the requests for budget stabilization funds. I proposed going down the list and voting them up or down. and I'll entertain motions. Yes. First item is the housing stabilization energy efficiency. Is there a motion? Councilmember Fred Brown? I guess point of order here. You want to go straight down the list to talk about and discuss each one of them? Well. Entirety or? Yeah, so my sense is we had a previous meeting where we had presentations and information about every single one of these items. So people have heard about them, and now we have all the information from the administration that we're going to get. And so, yes, that's what I'm proposing. I understand we're looking at a list that's got 45 million plus on it. Yes, sir. But it doesn't have any links information in here, which are going to be some other proposals coming forward. How are we handling the links? I think what we discussed before is that we would take votes on these items. People have had an opportunity to develop in their own mind what they want to fund and what they don't want to fund. And if it turns out that we start approving items above what the Budget Stabilization Fund holds, As was said by Council Member Bledsoe, there's always time for reconsideration. Final question, what number are we starting with and can we subtract down from that number as we progress through? Like we've done this before. Yes, so. We're starting with the 25 million, 184? My sense is that, and I'm happy to have this discussion. My sense is that right now there's $25 million in the budget stabilization fund. And until or unless we hit that ceiling, whether it's with items that are on this list or items that are on the mayor's list, that's what we've got to work with. Let's start with the $25 million 184,828, which is on this last schedule, and then work down as we can subtract as we go? Yes, sir. Is that fair enough? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So now I've got people signed in. Are these from, is this on the point of order or is this? If there's a question, I'll move up. I have a question. Okay, so if I can, let me, I'm going to take the people who are on this list and set up separate queue so that we can not get into the question of who's on for what. I want to make sure I've got everybody. Take the four people. I ask you if you are on this list right now to take your names off the list and if you want to speak to the question that's on the floor which is a procedural question to log back in. Okay, on the procedural, Councilmember McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My only question is about the mayor's 12, 12 and a half million. What are we going to consider that? I think we can include that. We have the information about what the mayor has included in her 12 and a half million, and And we can get to that. Because we had recommendation come out from the link process. I didn't know if we were waiting on that 12 and a half until later and only considering. I know Council Member Brown had asked that question just a minute ago about the $25 million. But if we need to advocate as link chairs now on behalf of that or that was my only question to it. So I think the simplest way to do it is to proceed down the list that we have in front of us. and then proceed down the list of the mayor's proposals for budget stabilization, which we have in front of us, and see where we end up. Works for me. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. And I think I'm going on the same question that Council Member Kern asked. So you're putting the mayor in with the $25 million. So the problem I have is you all met with your links, and the budget was discussed with that money in your links. so my question is why are we having this discussion if everybody agreed that their length that everything should be fine and said we just should be messing with the 12.15 because if there's any of you the lengths that questioned it I'd rather see that come out first before we go down this list here because to me I don't want to be sitting here taking 25 million and when the morning you've already approved your length and met with everybody that you're happy with with the mayor or whatever. I haven't heard anybody complain about the 12.5 out of the mayor's length. But if they have, I want to hear what that is before I start deducting everything because I don't want to be sitting here, start gutting it down, and then we're going to sit here with the mayor's budget. By the time we get to hers, we ain't going to have any money for her. That may be the case, but the point is this. What's coming out of the links is proposed for the council to approve. What's coming forward before you now for budget stabilization has exactly the same status. And we've been waiting to work on the budget stabilization fund until we had all the information about the mayor's proposed budget. So we have that information. We could have had this budget stabilization meeting a week ago, or two weeks ago. We could have had it actually months ago. But we chose to wait until we had more information about the mayor's proposed budget and the links. And we now have that information. The question is whose suggestions do we consider first, reconsider first and do we consider those as provisional with the opportunity to reconsider as we go? That's the question. I'm going to go off, I'm going to make a motion that we go on and look at the mayor's 12.5 million because I had the intent when we all met. We had 12.5 million dollars to mess with and that's what I would, everybody put their wish list together and it ended up coming a lot more than that. But as I sit here and you all met with your links, I'm thinking it'd be more easier for us to go on and agree or disagree with the 12.5 from the mayor, because it'll make this thing a lot simpler on how we do the math with the remaining left. So I make a motion that we go on and approve or listen to the mayor's recommendation, 12.5, go down her list if you want to, so move. I have a motion, is there a second? I have a motion and a second. For discussion on the motion, again, if you would, now I've got a second list. If you wish to speak, Council Member Bledsoe, you wish to speak to the motion or do you want to wait? I'll speak to the motion. Thank you. Council Member Merlin, thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Merlin, I sympathize with your motion, and I sympathize with the intent of your motion, which is why I sent the email last week. outlining that everyone needed to come prepared today, having read all the packet information, and have in your mind how you want to allocate the city's resources, which means I'll be voting no a lot in the beginning of this day because I have things in the mayor's proposed budget I want to support later today. So in other words, it's the same amount of money. It's just a matter of which ones we vote on first. and this is the way we've chosen, proposed to do it so far. That being said, we'll have to have options to reconcile. We'll have to have options to bring things back up that may get voted down because at the end of the day it turns out more or less people feel differently or we may not have enough money to find the things that we need to find and at the end of the day we'll have to go back again. I look at a lot of these things as preliminary in nature and I hope that people did what we asked them to do, which is come prepared to kind of take a stab at the $12 million that's kind of left, if you will, and then come back and look at it again, which I think is the only way we're going to be able to get through the budget, at least in the way it's been set up. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, are you on this motion? If mine was going to be similar to this or with this motion, yeah, I can ask the same question. Yeah, just like what Ms. Blitzo said, Council Member Blitzo said, when we look at our link, our budget stabilization 4.4, I think it would be helpful if we went through each one of these so we can actually talk about them before we start making motions because otherwise we're going to not get to these and we're going to be doing the process twice, I'm afraid, because we're going to go through, we're going to get through $25 million, then we're going to figure out well there's a lot of stuff that we didn't get on so we have to go back and start doing it again. I think it'd be beneficial to us if this was all on the same list but it's not going to be there. But it's going to be in five different lengths plus the budget stabilization list right there. But I do think it'd be helpful to go through all of them to talk about them and then we go start voting on them. That would be my suggestion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Maloney, for the motion. Not to be repetitive of what Council Member Bledsoe said, but I agree. And I think we're going to have to go through these lists at least two times, if not three times. So I would prefer us, since we all presented on these budget stabilization items, to not go into detail in a presentation and then just make the motion to see how they fall on the list. And then depending on where the money or the amount of funds that we allocate at the end, then we can revisit them. So I guess it's a preliminary round of motions and then we can get into clarification later. So thank you. Thank you, Vice President. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. and the way would come out and we got on the marriage budget and that's what I would see that on the other side so the point is I'm not happy I'm not happy because I don't know if you get out of the marriage stuff so I'm not going to support the way the future so I'm and we're talking about this is the money that i think is going to help in that i feel in I really think it's worth pointing the right to the city. I really think, for example, a point of a bar and all that thing. We've got a jail for some reason. Look at this. If anything has to change, we've got to have enough work. We've got to have money to get that. There's a lot of things that are going to be moving in the next couple months. If we've been in this money now, if we want to go there, it's a long way to be spending. So I hope, my colleagues, if we do not, if we ever come out, if we ever stick to it, then what we're doing about that, because there's a lot of those serious prices going on. There's a great price, actual $4. There's also awful money that we're not going to be able to spend. Some of that awful money can come back and pay for these products if you all want. And to read that's the time we need to look at this. It's amazing, we want to raise the funds, we want to get all of it. and alcohol and alcohol and alcohol. We put all these things together. It's just the time, the spending money, and to me, I'm not going to put all these things together. Even as a person, I can't talk about it. But we've got so many unanswered questions in this country and every country. It's been a bit easier. So I really do not point that we're good to do together. The people. You all may not complain. I didn't hear anybody yelling at me. So I asked you all not to put the thing together. I asked you not to be cautious on what we're going to do here. I'm not focused on what I think of. I'm not focused on the thing that's a bad product. I'm focused on this because it's not your time to pay with money. Thank you. Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm not happy with this particular process either for two reasons. First reason was that, and you, Vice Mayor, have done that already, but on this new listing of $45 million that we have, there's, and myself included, there's several of us that I think are willing to reduce our numbers to get a favorable response from the rest of the council. But how do we do that when we make a motion each time on our particular item? And that's my first thought. Second thought is I've been told and I looked through the link stuff that that was just kind of an automatic approval that the links would say, okay, whatever the mayor has in our links, we're going to approve that. And I don't think that's the appropriate way to do it. The Lynx done their job, but then they were reopened, which I didn't agree with, but I didn't have a vote on it. But that was reopened. And now that reopened the $12.5 million. I didn't want to reopen that because when I look at the mayor's $12.5 million, there's some of those things I want to support. But I think we should bring those up individually, like Councilmember Maloney had said. So I'm a little bit confused, but you all do whatever the majority wants to do. I'm certainly going to reduce my request here, which is a sizable amount of that $45 million, and I was hoping others would reduce their requests so we could go forward. Thank you. Okay, if I may answer the procedural, the first question you asked, it will be appropriate to move to amend or to make a motion to fund at a lower level on each of these items. So we can do that as we would normally do with a motion. So I think there will be that opportunity. I see no one else signed up to speak. The question on the floor is whether we start with the links or we start with the budget stabilization fund recommendations. All those, let me get an electronic screen if I can. What the motion, again my motion was to make sure we separate the mayor's budget proposal from our budget proposal. That we go on, that my motion was made to be due that. Is that we separate the mayor's proposal? The 12.5 million, because it's the length and everybody agreed with it, that we would just deal with the 12.5 million dollars we have left. That was my motion. So I guess I'm not clear. The motion is to treat the money that the mayor has proposed for budget stabilization separately from the request that we have from council members? Yeah, well, yeah, that is correct. I want to separate it and if we want to go through that list first, I'm fine with that part. Okay, so as I had proposed, we would go through the list we have in front of us and then we would go through the mayor's proposed, what's in the mayor's proposed budget for budget stabilization funds. So that's consistent with this, I just want to make sure we understand. I'm going to clarify. My idea is that I want to separate the 12.5 from the 25 million for the mayor's part only, and that we don't put the two together. And if somebody wants to come back and go and vote on each one of the mayor's part, that's fine. But right now the links have not come up with any complaints, so I want to take the 12.5 out by itself. And we have 12.5 our own money that we were told to do. So moved. Thank you. I think I understand. The motion is basically to say for the list we're looking at from council members, We consider only 12.5 and then we separately consider the mayor's 12.5 and the projects that she has proposed. Is that any further discussion on the motion? Okay, electronic voting. All in favor signify by saying aye. That motion fails. That brings us back, and I had four people who were signed up for motions at that point, starting with Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. If we're going down the list, my comment is about your proposal. Is that where we're starting? I'm sorry. Could you repeat? I said, are we starting at the top of the list? Yes, ma'am. Okay, because my comment is on your proposal. So I wanted to start there. Okay. So in conversation with the vice mayor, and because he is chairing this meeting, I am making a motion that we have all received an email about reducing the amount of the total request for this proposal to $3.675 million. instead of the $5,675,000, so reducing that by $2 million. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Reynolds? Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can you remind me how many households that would cover with the reduced amount? With the reduced amount, it would be roughly 120 households based on an average of $25,000 per household. $25,000 per household. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember McCloiber. Just a quick question about the motion. Is this a motion putting it forward for us to vote on at that reduced rate right now or just amending that on the list? Just to amend it. Okay, thank you. Further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, if we could have an electronic screen. I need one more. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. The next item would be number two, the budget stabilization funds for bonding amount of... No, sir, I believe that was a motion to decrease, then there was a motion to approve the item as a... I'm sorry. I'm having a little trouble hearing even with electronic support. That was the motion to reduce. Was there a further motion to approve? Move to approve. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. A motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we have an electronic screen again. Council Member Maloney. Vice Mayor, I appreciate what you're doing. To me, we already have a program that we can use money in-house. This is money that I think we need to use to balance our budget down the future. future and I gave that example with CDBG money. We could do three houses a year and see if this team works because you are taking a project that's never been worked before. And to be honest with you, I've dealt with these houses in CDBG when I was CAO and worked at a non-profit. These houses are talking about anywhere from 50 to 100 years old and to put that kind of equipment on top of that house to not have the energy savings in the there's a lot of unanswered questions and we're not able to even fix the houses we have now with CDBG money because we can't find people to do it. But to me it would be a better and maybe if we do it right and it ends up working and we take this money and save it for the next year or two and it ends up being a success that then we can come back and start taking this money out of this budget stabilization if this project is a success. I cannot support this when we can do it in-house and do it a pilot project. And if it works, more power to you. We'll come back and fund it a lot more than what it is. But this is not the time to be doing it because, to me, I have not seen it work with them. When I've been talking to other cities, they've had a lot of problems with this, so I cannot support this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I hate to keep going back to clarification, but is this a final vote for this to go forward to another list? I think given what we discussed in the previous motion, that like every other motion to approve, these are subject to reconsideration. Okay. But right now it's to approve that as a part of the use of budget stabilization funds. Right now we're looking at that at about 12 million, the monies that we can spend. Right now we're working against 25 million. I know we're going to have some reductions on this list. And I guess in my mind I'm thinking if I knew what that new number would be with the reductions, my thinking would be a little bit different. But if we're going to go ahead and move this to another list for reconsideration once we know what reduced monies are, then I'm okay with it. Gotcha, I mean, got what I'm saying. So what we're trying to do is put together an initial list that would be subject to reconsideration. Okay, that clarifies it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, electronic vote please. That vote reflects failure of the motion. That would bring us to number two, which is the bonding amount. Is there a motion? I would like to, since I brought that forward, I'd like to amend the motion on that $15,230,000. and if I could, is it possible to get that up on the screen, that bonding amount, because it's about six or seven items, and it's in the budget. I think it's in one of the budget pages there, and I'm looking at, as you're looking for that $15 million, that specific amount, Now, the mayor's total budget is $42 million, 002, and that encompasses other things that she's put on there. $42 million additional debt is what we're talking about in a bonding. And it's a little bit alarming in the fact that we went through the process of trying to determine what would be a good flow for the next five years, five to ten years. on what we would bond and do some priority bonding. And we, at that point, tried to cap that at $20 million. So right now we're looking at $42 million. So that was one of the reasons that I wanted to put this $15,230,000 into budget stabilization because that's a savings we have instead of bonding it. In that, I think this, I don't guess we've got that 15 million, you haven't got that showing? I see that, 42 million, I've got that number, 42 million. The 15 million was on another schedule. It was on that big work schedule that we worked with that showed different colors. And it showed the bonding amount that we wanted to do. You're not going to find it there. It was in that spreadsheet that we originally had. You got it? I got it. No, that's the $42 million. I've got that $42 million detail. I think he's trying to figure out the bond cost per $1 million for that $42 million. No, I want to see the detail of the $15-$2 million so I can reduce it. There we go. I think that's it. That's just part of it. That's MAP. You've got MAP there. If I may, sir. You know when we had that big long spreadsheet and we had the different columns out there, one of the columns was bonding that the mayor proposed, and it had about six or seven items. And one of them was police, fire and emergency services, heavy fleet for $6,100,000. Are you discussing the ARPA spreadsheet, sir? That's ARPA. ARPA, yeah. That's ARPA. Yeah. So currently in the mayor's proposed budget is $9.5 million bonded for paving and $3.5 million out of MAP fund. We just had a late item. I'm not even talking about paving. I'm not even talking about paving. I'm talking about the $15,230,000. It doesn't have, I don't think it has paving. For vehicles in ARPA? Yeah. Okay, to save some time here. Vice Mayor, what I would like to do is reduce that $15 million down to, there's $6,100,000 for fire and emergency services. I want to keep that in bonding, and the difference, I want to reduce this. So $15,230 would be 61. All right, I would like to reduce my $15,230 by $9,130,000. Therefore, that amount that I want to come out of budget stabilization is the $9,130,000. I'm sorry, I want to reduce it by $6,100,000. I want to reduce that down, and I want to say, let's pay out of budget stabilization all other items except the $6,100,000. Second. Because I think that ought to be a bonding item that we've done in the past. The council has already approved for the three fleet items in a reimbursement resolution for bonding. just for reference. Which ones are you talking about? General Services Fleet, Fire Fleet, and Police Fleet. What was the total on that? $12.5 million. And we've already approved that? Yes, sir. That was in that $15 million, I guess, the $10 million, $10 or $12? It's about $12.5 million. So it's already been bonded in $12.5 million. There's already been a reimbursement resolution approved for it to go in bonding this year. Well, then all I have to work with is the difference that I'd like to reduce it then. In other words, whatever is left there, I want to take out of budget stabilization money. If I'm not mistaken, sir, the $1.5 million for the police annex and the salt barns were actually proposed out of budget stabilization or one-time funds, cash funds, not proposed to be bonded. You're telling me that $15,230,000 has already been spent and I don't have to. No, sir. I'm telling you that we have already moved forward with bonding the fleet vehicles and then the mayor's proposed budget actually has the other items being paid for with cash. Okay. Therefore, I'll make a motion to reduce my request by $15,230,000. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Council Member Maloney, wish to speak to the motion. Mr. Brown, my question, Council Member Brown, my question to you is, you're requesting the budget stabilization take $15 million out of the budget stabilization so we don't have to bond the $42 million. Is that what your intent is? My intent is to get it off this list. So where is the 15. It's already spent. No, we haven't spent. We've got $25 million right now. The way I read your motion is we were going to take $15 million out of our $25, which means you're going to have to ask the mayor to cut $3 million out of her budget because you just spent all our $12.5. He's withdrawn. Oh, you're withdrawn. Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I threw it in the motion. My bad. If I may, Council, I have the motion from Councilmember Brown to remove item number two from the list. Second. I have a second. I have a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Just to be consistent, let's have an electronic screen. And that vote reflects the passage of the motion. Thank you, sir. Next item is additional $2 million for paving. I appreciate going through that and at least we've got some of that straightened out and I hope other council members will look at that and maybe do some compromising on some dollar amounts too. But, to utilize the $2 million for paving, I don't want to bond that. I want to just increase paving by $2 million using budget stabilization money. So moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Discussion on the motion? that's not on council member Worley thank you vice mayor I 100% agree with increasing the paving budget by 2 million dollars we are so close to the first time ever actually fully funding the pavement management plan and so I absolutely agree with that 2 million dollar increase that being said I don't agree with using budget stabilization as our primary choice and would prefer that that $2 million come $533,658 from municipal aid program and the remainder be part of an increase to the bond package. This was, as you all will see, a LINC recommendation from the Environmental Quality and Public Works LINC. So this is where we've got a couple items that went through different processes. But our link did review this item, have discussion on it, and through our normal processes was going to make this recommendation. So while I agree with the $2 million, I would move to amend and that such increase would be paid both by an increase in the bond and use of the remaining municipal aid program funds. Second. I have a motion and a second and a motion to amend. Discussion on the amendment? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And Council Member Worley, I appreciate your amendment. I guess my initial question before the amendment was going to be if this is something that we can consider during fund balance. And I'm just saying that because if we add this additional money to the pavement, and I wonder if we're actually going to be able to use it before we get to the fund balance discussion, and maybe we can add this additional amount later. So I think what we have done a poor job of the city of assisting our partners in paving. We need to fund early on, and we need to get our paving list to them early. The paving season is about 10 months of the year on a good year. So if they know up front that the money is there, then they'll hire more trucks if they need to, more men. They can fire up their second asphalt plant. And so we've had discussions over the years of can they do it, can they not do it. In fact, they can do whatever we will fund. They own two asphalt plants here in this town, and they have not fired the second one up in years and years because we've not given them a need to. So I think if they see that we are willing to make this investment in our public infrastructure they will make the investment in their business to be the partners that they have always been to us. So while I appreciate that there be another opportunity to look at other money I think if we're going to get the best bang for our buck and we're going to get guaranteed we can spend this for you we need to do it now. Well thank you for that Councilmember Worley. I think that does make sense. My only other consideration or hesitation to supporting the amendment is the MAP funds could be used in other capacities in regards to requests on this list, whether it's using it to pay debt service or something else that's bondable. So I would like to leave that money free if possible until we get through the list, but other than that, I would support an increase to payment. And, Council Member, I support the full $2 million being bonded. Throwing in the MAP funds was actually, since I've made an amendment to Council Member Brown's increase, was trying to be a compromise. But I'm comfortable bonding the full $2 million, and that's actually what the link recommended. But just to be clear, the motion on the floor is a combination. Council Member Fred Brown. Well, I take issue to the motion by Council Member Worley because we're looking at two different funding sources. We're not talking about links yet. He brings in the item on links that's a proposal, and my motion is for the $2 million to be paid out of budget stabilization, period. And I don't accept the amendment, and I don't think it's correct. Okay. Of course, he's a parliamentarian, but... Well, I think the motion is in order. It's a motion to amend. Now, you may object to the frame he's put around it, but the motion is in order. In addition, you know, we just keep putting this government in debt. Now if you want to do $2 million more bonding, that takes it up to $44 million from the $42 million. You know, when is enough enough? You know, I want paving, but I'm certainly not going to support paving through a bonding, any additional bonding. You've got to remember we're doing $9.5 million already in bonding. and so I'm going to vote against the amendment. Okay, thank you. Council Member Maloney. I'm going to support the amendment. I agree with Council Member Brown. For years we never did bond payment. We always used map money. Back then we only spent $5, $6 million and sometimes we got up to $10 million. But as you said, the plants will be open. They will be able to get this done and to me it's one of the biggest issues that i hear in luskington right now that they need their roads paved and i support and when it goes back to the fund balance we usually don't get a report too late in the season on the fund balance and and if we took that money later they won't the plants won't be open but doing it right now we'll be have a solid chance to getting a lot of this done before they closed the plan so that's the reason i support your amendment thank you councilmember clover thank you i would prefer if we'd never had to bond for paving ever just because it's not something that appreciates over time and costs us a lot more money that being said i would probably i support the underlying idea of making two million additional dollars towards paving since we're so close i will probably vote against this particular motion just because I personally would prefer if we were bonding less for paving in our future. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just to clarify, when the link was going to recommend the $2 million, did they have a recommendation to increase or decrease budget stabilization by that bond? By that bond number $226,000? Did you repeat the question? So if we're increasing the bond by $2 million, the bond payment on that this year would be $226 million. Michael, is that right in my head? Okay. Was that coming out of budget stabilization? Honestly, the LINC didn't make a recommendation on that, but I assume it would either have to come out of budget stabilization or it could come out of the MAP funds. I mean, there's several different ways to do it. I think, again, I threw the MAP funds in here to be a compromise with a council member, but it may be more appropriate to separate those out and leave those to something to be available cash for debt service. Okay, thank you. I'm just raising the point. Commissioner? Should I say something? So sorry. So if we're taking on additional debt, that is not something that we would need to use budget stabilization for because it's one-time funding for a recurring expense. So I would potentially recommend fund balance, reducing the fund balance. We just added to it with the late item. So that might be a recurring revenue source that could compensate for that. Which has $141. Added $141. It's up to $1.33 million by the end of next year. Okay, that might be a better. Thank you. I was just clarifying since we didn't have an answer to that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Question, Commissioner. We have, are we using some of this MAP money to continue to pay for it? Because we did this back in the 90s or in 2000. We bonded $11 million and we used MAP money to pay for that over the years. And that was paid off in 10 years. Have we, since then, we were using MAP money to pay for employees' salaries. So would this go back to possibility since we got a $533,000 increase from MAP money, that we could use some of that MAP money to pay for the bonds instead of going into the general funds and use that like we did before? I know you all hate some of that, but I know we've done it before. We have had in the past some of the MAP money that's used for our debt service with the $533,000. We haven't done that recently when we switched to doing the employees. This year we're able to not pay for salaries. So the $533,000 that's been added for MAP this time could reduce the additional bond that we're discussing and bring the payment down to $171,000. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. This is a vote on the amendment to the motion. An electronic screen, please. A vote reflects failure of the motion on a tie vote. This brings us back to the underlying motion for the discussion. The underlying motion is $2 million out of the budget stabilization fund for paving. Further discussion? It looks like... That vote reflects failure of the motion. Next item is the high street entrance to Town Branch Park. Is there a motion? Move to approve. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Ellinger, for continuing to advocate for that improvement. Given the fact that we don't know if we're going to have the RISE grant as much infrastructure, would you be open to a friendly amendment to fund potentially 1.2 now and save the $2 million for the fund balance? Actually, I was going to make that motion, but I'm glad you did. So, yes, I will definitely second that. I have a motion to amend, which is to reduce the amount at this point to 1.2, with the remaining $2 million to be considered when we deal with fund balance in the fall. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. I'm for them. I don't mind the motion. I don't want to have a question on his motion. That's what I want to ask. Is this going to be included in the motion on everything? Right now we're on an amendment to the motion, which is to reduce it. The question I have is, are we just wanting to forward an amendment on, then we'll go back to the discussion? That's what I want to do. I want to wait until we come back to discussion on the motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? So the motion is to amend. We have a screen, please. We need one more vote. Thank you. That reflects passage of the motion, brings us to now the underlying motion as amended. Is there further discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Thank you. Councilman, I appreciate you bringing this, but I have a person who asked me to ask this question. They put a lot of money into the park, and they were told that it's going to be a private park where they'll have a private company make sure that nobody goes into the park at night and all that kind of makes sure it's maintained. Now that we're putting public money into this park, did that private park go away because we're now putting public money into it and the question becomes and they're concerned about at night who is going to authorize it because we have public money into this park it's supposed to have been private all along who is going to maintain it since now public money has come into the project I think it's probably we need a law question or commissioner question. I think we have an attorney coming to the podium. Welcome, David. Good morning. If the question is, is this an appropriate expenditure of public money, the answer is yes. If the question is, does this obligate us to maintain the park, I don't know that I know the answer to that. I don't think it does, but is that what you're asking? Who would maintain the... I think their question was, and I don't mean to say it, but homelessness is their concern. And they were told that homeless would be taken out of park because it's a private park. The city will not have to go in there and take it over. But now that we're putting public money into it, they were concerned that it becomes a public park because we put public money into it. no i think it's still in the po and it's still an appropriate public expenditure even though this is not a truly public park so i don't think it's going by giving this money i don't think it's going to change how the the park is planned to be operated so the private park can continue to kick the homeless yeah i think that if i want to i think that the i think that the the park can continue to maintain and uh and you know do those things that i was planning on doing anyway whether we give them this money or not okay thank you yes just to clarify this is for uh public infrastructure improvement it's not for the park it's public infrastructure improvement that would allow for an entrance to the park i had a meeting with them last week and they said that they needed 2.3 to build the ramp down to the go over manchester street and go down this is what the the money was supposed to be for. And that's what I was told in that meeting. Now, the $5 million that Mary put in her budget is already going to be there if it gets funded or don't get funded from the grant that we apply for. But if it does not get funded, but I've been told we still have to have money, the park needs money to get over Manchester Street to go down the ramp, and I was told this is what this money was for, the $2.3 million to go over. And that's where the question came to me. They were putting public money back into the park from somebody. And it's first and foremost. I'm just saying I thought I would ask that question. And it was told to me in the meeting that I met with the folks in the park. So it is supposed to be an overpass over Manchester Street to get down from the main entrance because it's like going to the lake. You look up that hill, you've got to get down that hill. And that's what this is supposed to be. It's supposed to build, to come down that lake is what it looks like. And that's public money, and now I told them I would ask that question. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, if we can have an electronic screen, this is on the underlying motion as amended. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next, Sports Complex. Is there a motion? Motion to approve. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. I would, given some of the things that are still talked about that item, would it be appropriate to consider this is the fund balance conversation as opposed to budget stabilization today. I would be happy to put that into the fund balance for the fall. So this is a motion to amend? Yes it is. To place that in the fund balance discussion for the fall. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we have an electronic screen. This is a motion to amend. Yes. To amend, to move it to fund balance discussion. I still have one vote. Thank you. That reflects passage of the motion. Now, through the underlying motion as amended, Is there further discussion? Council Member Fred Brown. There we go. There we go. On this $4 million, I don't know if we got, you know, we've talked about it and probably booted this amount, and I think it started at about $10 million. But anyway, what's this $4 million? Has it got a specific project on it? It does not have a specific project, but it would go for U Sports. and there are some different discussions out there right now. I'd go for infrastructure for a potential youth sports complex. So it's not to buy any property. It's just to do some infrastructure. Correct. Initially, we were looking at buying the property and doing the complex. Would that be part of Park's agenda, their budget? Is that where the money would move into? Is that the infrastructure investment? I think the underlying motion from what Councilman Ellinger would suggest the last time we had this conversation was that money would be used for one-time use public infrastructure funds towards sports complex use for Fayette County kids. So, I'm just not sure that we're not already putting a lot of money in the budget there because I know we've got the cardinal running north. We're putting $10 million in for it. I'd be supportive of reducing this down, but I can't support the full $4 million. That's what your motion is, right? I can't support it. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion as amended, which is to consider the $4 million with the fund balance discussion in the fall? Seeing none, we can have a screen. That reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next, as crime prevention, is there a motion? So moved. Second. A motion and a second. And discussion, Council Member Legree? I suppose this is an amendment of the motion. I move to amend in order to find item number six under council member requests for budget stabilization funds, which is crime prevention through environmental design, lighting suggestions for the downtown entertainment district, district out of fund 2610 using unspent 2020 bond monies and then to remove item six from the list of the council member requests. I have a motion and a second to amend the motion. Is there discussion? Council member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree that we can put this on as a bond, but I have spoke with the people from the Fifth Third Pavilion and also with the Breeders' Cup group and also the DLP, the Downtown Lexington Partnership. I gave you all a pass around that explains what their executive summary for that park is and it would be 262,000 to get everything done to get ready for the Breeders' Cup. I spoke with Kip earlier and this year the Breeders' Cup is going to be focused mainly in the Tandy Park and they're going to put a big screen up there. They're going to make this the focal point for all the entertainment from the Sunday to Saturday to watch the races, to watch the workouts, looking at possibly having opportunities to have TVG down there. So in order to get this ready, and also we have a contract with 5th Third in 2025 to show them good faith that we want to have the best pavilion that we can, I would request that we would keep $90,000. We would put the $172 in the bond, but keep $90,000 in the budget stabilization to do the whole package. So that would be my amendment to this. So moved. I have a proposal to amend. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Ellinger, where is that $89,063 coming from? From budget stabilization. Okay. Was there enough by any chance left over from the bond from fiscal year 22? That is the whole bond. That was the whole, okay. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just for clarity's sake, I think we ought to dispense with the motion that's on the floor and then consider the other information that was shared, in my opinion. Thank you. I withdraw the motion. The motion to amend has been withdrawn. I don't want to bring it back up. That brings us back to the original motion. Is there further discussion on the original motion? Council Member McCurney, are you on? Council Member James Brown? No. Thank you. There's no further discussion on the motion. We have an electronic screen and take a vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That brings us to the design of Versil's Road Improvement. Vice Mayor Kay, we still need a motion on number six as amended. So Council Member Ellinger withdrew his amendment. We have Councilmember Lagree's amendment we just voted on, and we still need a motion to approve number six as amended. Thank you. This is now, we're back on the underlying motion as amended. Seeing no further discussion, we have another screen, please. Hold on. Thank you. to um typically it's not appropriate when we're voting but um if we can back up a half a step council member ellinger discussion on the underlying motion now i just wanted to um with that so it will be a zero amount in the in that because we took out it's going to be bonded right that's well it's not going to be bonded it we had a bond reissue that was approved at the last work session that was this amount so council member lagree's motion was to use the funds from that bond reissue to fund this project and remove it from the budget stabilization list so it won't really be bonded That's where I want to bring that in. Okay. So on the assumption that we have not yet taken a vote, it's appropriate to have a motion to amend, and that is to, can you repeat your motion to amend? My motion would be to amend the $172,000 to $90,000. To add $90,000. To budget stabilization. Okay, there's a motion to amend, is there a second? Hearing none. We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion, council member will agree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mayor, so just for clarification's sake, I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. Thank you for clarifying, just so that everyone understands. In the 2020 bond package, there was approximately the same amount of money remaining as what I requested, the 172,000 for the lighting suggestions. Those funds will fully fund that request. Councilmember Ellinger, what I'm understanding is that you are making a request that we use $90,000 from budget stabilization to do additional work in the 5th, 3rd Pavilion and Tandy Park area. Is that accurate? That would be correct. Instead of the $172,000 that would be left in budget stabilization, I would reduce that down to $90,000. And then the bond would take care of yours, and I would add the 90 for the rest of the Tandy Park. Okay, thank you for that clarification. I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I appreciate it. Council Member, I understand your motion at the last hour to bring this on. I do have a question why we need to follow this process to what you request. And to bring something on that's never been on, been discussed before, I have concerns about supporting something right now until I have to do my homework. But the $10 million I requested for affordable housing, that did not make this list. Is there a reason why that did not make the list? Sir, are you speaking to this motion? Well, I'm speaking to this motion. I don't think it should be on right now because we're not following the process. I just want to know why certain things were not put on. The $10 million was funded with ARPA money. Yeah, Vice Mayor, I don't think you might have not been here. The money was at an additional $10 million on top of that. Out of budget stabilization money. I'm sorry, you're saying there was a request for an additional $10 million? Yeah, I was a request. We had our own room full of people here saying they wanted the $10 million additional on top of the $10 million different property. And she made the motion. We knocked it down to $8 million because I wanted $10 million. And the mayor already put two in the budget. so we're going to make another $10 million. So it was going to be $8 million they were going to request. Council Member Lamb over there made a motion. If I may, I'd like to resolve the issue that's on the floor. Well, it sounds like we're getting out of whack here with something new I've never seen before, and that's why I'm questioning when you're putting things on there that never worked, that shouldn't have been on there. Now we're putting things that you're taking off that should have been on there. Just to be clear, this is an amendment to a motion that was on the list and is absolutely in order. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you. I have two questions. But first, since I also had not heard of this initiative, Monica, I hate to put you on the spot, But since this is on a public park, one, are you aware of it? Two, how does it impact your thinking about this park and the timing? If you don't mind, and I apologize for asking so quickly. Thank you, Council Member. So the question, again, is that based on the timing of when we think we can do the $90,000 investment? If it's critical and if we can get it done. if you feel like this is a necessary expenditure to doing it? So I certainly feel like the lighting improvements will definitely increase our park operations. The additional funding that's being requested for Breeders' Cup are certainly items that could improve that experience if they can be completed on time. And that's a question for it you think is questionable? It is. Until it's decided and funded, it's, you know, this economy that we are in today is very unpredictable as far as timing and lead times. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. So, since I'm voting no a lot today, at this point I'd rather, I won't support this at this particular moment. not because I don't think it's important to do and I'd be willing to consider it at the end of today should we have resources available because in my mind it is a secondary while important not critical and I think the lighting and the other things that Councilman Reglaire has put forward is probably more of a time sensitive imperative for me and critical than this one although I'm willing to reconsider it later today. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one Anyone else signed up to speak to the amendment? Please log in. One more vote. That vote reflects failure of the motion. I believe that would allow us to go on to the next item, which is for Sales Road. We need a motion as amended. On the underlying motion, please register your vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion and now we can go on to the next item for Sales Road. Is there a motion? I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Council member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. As I recall, I have a question of the council member. This $4 million is for the design of the full project, all phases, correct? Correct. It's cheaper to fund it all at once. Okay. And that's certainly true. I guess my only concern with the design of the whole project is the feasibility and funding of the project and then seeing redesigns and having to go through a lot of that in the future. I mean, I certainly support these improvements, but it seems to me if the phases are going to take a long time in the future, then designing now is just going to cause redesign and cost estimate down the road. So maybe it would be better to do this, design one or two phases that can be accomplished quickly. So that's really my only concern with funding the entire design of such a massive project at this point. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I guess my question goes to either the CAO Hamilton or maybe Engineer Director. We had this discussion about three months ago about the Vassells Road. And we originally were going to use the offer money, 2.5 million, to try to do the phase between Vassels Road and Oxford Circle. But we realized it would take longer than five years because of the easement for the properties. And because they'd be going to court fighting if they think the property is worth a lot more money. What came up with the scenario was that we do $2.5 million, which we think would be more attractive because when the infrastructure comes here, we are already ahead of it to show that this is how important it is to this community, the 2.5. To do that phase between Mason Healy to Red Mile Road. Since then, I see you all want to go all the way to Oliver Lewis Way. I wasn't in that conversation. And there's a reason why we're going all over this way, and that goes back to what Council Member Worley is saying, that it's going to take a while for us to do, because how long we took the first phase that Peggy and I have been working for many years on. Now, the major crisis is between Mason, Healy, and Vassales Road, which I think you in that discussion all have agreed that the 2.5, if we could do the study on it, or I thought we were going to use opera money. Now, why it won out of opera money, you all might be able to answer that. I don't know, but now it's put back into budget stabilization, but it's up to $4 million, and I'm just concerned why such a big drastic change. And number two, I want to see why we can't. I want to be sure that we get that part that I'm more concerned about between Red Mile Road and Mason Healy would bulk of the pedestrians are. So you all might be able to give me a little bit of history. I think you've given a lot of the history, Council Member Maloney. The first conversation that we had with Council Member Reynolds and I think you were involved also, was we were looking at ARPA funds, if you all remember, and 2.5 was the number. And 2.5 was the number basically because, and Mr. Burton will answer that question in more detail if you need it, but we could not accomplish that project, that design, with all those easements within the ARPA timeline. So 2.5 was the number. The reason why it didn't go in ARPA is like what you're talking about today. A lot of those projects that we looked at with ARPA, we couldn't do, like for instance, couldn't do at that particular time, like the park, and there are several others on here. And so that is the reason it fell to this particular budget stabilization. In the meantime, when it fell to budget stabilization, the time limit was not an issue anymore. You know, of how long it would take to do the design. So that's when I think Councilmember Reynolds wanted to do the project in total because she wasn't concerned at that point about the limitation on time. Just one thing to add, the 2.5 initially for ARPA also included right-of-way purchases, not just some of the design, which is really what kicked it out of the ARPA. because we can predict how long our design phase is going to run. That's roughly 18 months, give or take, right away, because if someone fights either the value or the right to take, that can take literally tens of years. So that's why it really ran into a schedule issue with ARPA funding. And then the $4 million is the entire amount. So my question to you, do you want us to do the $4 million or the $2.5? Because I want to get this thing. I'm more concerned with the part between. Now, if we do the $4 million, I mean, I've got to sit here and sell it to Michael. But you're going to have to sell it to us. Why? You think $4 million is better than $2.5 million? I bill what you guys fund, so it's up to you. Well, I thought there was, I don't want to, I was just trying to figure out how we went from $2.5 million up to $4 million. And I figured you might have had a real good reason why. That's why I was asking that question. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. mayor I just wanted to respond to this question about how to do the design I was told it would be more cost-effective to do both at the same time and that we would have more leverage on getting the whole project done possible federal funds and even state funds and that if we had the whole design done well I realize it can take a while and and that's always my concern and just doing a design that it's worth the risk because right now the project is not shovel ready and so the idea is to connect everything that's going on on High Street right now with a new convention center with the park with downtown to the rest of our sales road and finish the project and in order to best do that having the whole design done is our is our best option and it's a little bit of a gamble but I think we have a lot of options moving forward to leverage funds, but we have to have something to leverage with. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you Vice Mayor. Director Burton, and you probably answered this in a previous conversation about this, so forgive me, but that $4 million includes design and right-of-way, correct? Or is that just this new $4 million is only design, has no right-of-way component like the original two and a half? That's correct. I believe it's just just design only, because if I recall, it was roughly 2.3 for the first two sections, and maybe the rest was in the last two sections. And no right-of-way. I don't have that number in front of me. My apologies. But I know it was all of the design. I'd have to double-check on the right-of-way. And this is cash. Again, I bill what you guys fund. I guess I'm just making a statement. This is cash. Thank you very much, Director. I'm all for you know all these projects are hard because we fund one we're not giving money towards something else we've it's a it's not a good or bad decision it's just a what's the priority decision and I think I'm for it in some capacity I'm real hesitant spend four million dollars of cash on it to be just blunt on any project I said the same thing about Harrisburg Road or or on any other other major state highways, which this is, is a state road. That's my hesitancy. I would be supportive of it maybe in phases or maybe not in so much as cash, but I'm hesitant, even if I'm supportive of the project. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. After getting my answer and all that, and I appreciate you wanting the $4 million, I feel with the money that we have, but not very much, and the area that I'm concerned about the most and the people that were here concerned about the most, I would like to make a motion that we take it from 4 million to 2.5, what we originally discussed a couple months ago. So moved. Motion to amend to reduce the number to 2.5. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, where we have a voting screen. That vote reflects passage of the motion. So now we're back to the underlying motion as amended. Is there further discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair, I'd like to comment. Mr. Vice Mayor, go ahead. Thank you. I also, like many council members, have received a fair number of emails in support of this project. And I have split, I'm kind of divided on this question. I'm concerned that it's a lot of money, even at the 2.5. and that this is money that we're taking out currently and it has to be compared to other projects that are also worthy. And for a road project that's included in the state plan, that's included in our area management, I'm just reluctant to basically put this at the head of the list. I understand how important it is, but I also understand it's not the most important. It's not necessarily the most important project at this point. It ties up that money for the next few years without essentially any impact on the actual changes in the road. So I cannot be supportive. Thank you. I'll take the chair back. Council Member Brown. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm supportive of this project. I do share some of the same concerns that the Vice Mayor shared about it being at the front of the list and comparing it to other projects. So with that, I'd make an amendment to bond this project using MAP funding to pay debt service for $2.5 million. So move. Thank you. I have a motion, is there a second? Seeing none, that fails for lack of a second. Councilman Maloney, you've spoken twice on this issue. You're talking about the amendment failed for a lack of a second. No. The motion is back to the original motion on Bissell's vote. I made the amendment to go from 2.5. That was the second time. I have not spoken on this motion yet to prove that that's my call. I'll stand corrected if anybody can untangle. I thought Councilman Maloney spoke to the original motion. What is the motion? The motion on the floor is as amended, 2.5 out of budget stabilization funds. Since, Council Member Maloney, you wish to speak again, go right ahead. Seeing nobody else signed up to speak, can we have a screen? This is on the underlying motion as amended. Still one vote. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That allows us to move to the Arboretum. Is there a motion to approve? I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member will agree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, let me say that because of my employment at the University of Kentucky, I have to recuse myself from voting on today's proposal for the Arboretum, but however, on behalf of Council Member Lamb, and because the Arboretum is an asset to all of Lexington, but especially to Lexington's third district, I'm going to advocate on her behalf for the capital expansion of the Dorothea Oates Visitor Center and the granting of $300,000 to contribute to the renovation and expansion. The Visitor Center Capital Expansion Project has a total budget of $3 million, and of that the Arboretum has raised more than half in gifts and pledges through over 600 donors. Functionally, this expansion will add dedicated indoor space for meetings, programs, and events, as well as outdoor space used for gatherings, programming, and events. The final result will include work by stained glass artist Laura Mentor, which will depict four of Kentucky's distinct physiographic regions and representative flora, insects, and landscape features that we'll use to educate and interpret Kentucky's ecology. The Arboretum receives over 200,000 visitors annually, and that could increase with the Visitor Center as they'd be better equipped for events and educational opportunities and gatherings. So I would like to move to consider funding this request of $300,000 to move the Arboretum closer to this goal. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I understand that the mayor had $200,000 in there, and then there's a $300,000. That's a half a million. Is that what they need, a half a million? The question was, do they need the extra $300,000? They need a half a million. On top of the $200,000, the mayor, and I'm not sure that's going to be passed either, but the 300,000 on top of that. Council Member, I think the intent is to get them as close as possible to their goal and to move this project forward. And I believe that Council Member Lamb's goal with putting this into our consideration is to help this project be successful. And it's up to us to determine at what level we'd like to fund in tandem or in relation to the mayor's request. All right. A follow-up question on that. Who owns the Arboretum? I don't think the city owns anything out there. Anybody from the administration answer that question? My understanding is all U.K. I'm surprised that U.K. wouldn't be able to get on board with this instead of public money from our government? The property of the Arboreum is owned by the University of Kentucky. That being said, I think the government has a history of occasionally funding certain things that are built out there. I think we did that in the past. I agree. Thank you. I just have a problem with this. In light of some of our other priorities, I just have a little bit of problem with this and I don't know if it'd be possible if we put some in and UK matches it, but I don't think that negotiation has been there. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In general, I'm supportive of this project and moving this project forward, but I do want to also state that I need to recuse from this vote because of my affiliation with UK as well. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I kind of agree with Council Member Brown. We've always, all the time, UK will be up here standing here too if they put some money up when we did the office, and they will put money up when we'd be a partnership here. I've not seen UK involved in any of this. And my question is, the administration putting $200,000 up for what? And is it because they always put $200,000 in there to help out, or what is their $200,000 going to? And if it's something that they're satisfying UK's needs, then my question is why are we coming up with additional $300,000 without having UK out here to help us? The administration put their $200,000 in for the Oates Center for a contribution. And it has not been, as Mr. Barbary said, we have put money in before for various things. but we have never been consistent in that. I remember in the Gray administration, I think we may have put $50,000 or $100,000, but I don't think in the last few years we've given anything. But this is to that visitor center. You answered my question. I mean, I'm for the project, and I think the mayor had put in her part to keep this project going. If I had UK up here and they were going to say they were going to match something, it would make me want to sell it a lot easier. I don't see, I think we're doing all the heavy work here. So I can't support this right now, but again, when the budget balance comes in in December or whenever it is, we might want to come back and if UK comes here to look at that. So I can't support spending the money right now. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I think I have, at the sake of consistency, while I've been convinced from time to time, I generally don't support us paying for things for other public entities that have their ability to raise their own revenue. That's not that I disagree with this particular project. I enjoy the Arboretum as much as everyone. But UK is a large public entity. and I guess I've been convinced to go ahead to support what the mayor put in there, but I don't know that I could go much further. And then just a point of order, Vice Mayor, as I understood, Council Member Legree was making a statement on behalf of and supporting Council Member Lamb, but she intends to recuse, so it might be appropriate if someone else were to take on as the mover of this item just so that we don't create any inconsistency in the record or for Councilmember to agree. If there's no objection, can we have somebody else move this forward and make the initial motion? I'll move. Second. Okay. Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Ellinger, thank you. Thank you for that. Any further discussion on the motion? And again, Council Member Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair for just a moment. Chair, go ahead. I guess I've been aware of what is usually spoken of as a partnership between the university and the city for the arboretum. and it is an incredible amenity which the university does all the heavy lifting on. They staff it. They basically fund all of it. The Oates Center was initially funded by Dorothy Oates entirely out of private funds, And there's been an effort obviously by the Arboretum folks to kind of expand the visitor center so that it's a better amenity. While I understand the question of why the university would not be on the hook for all of this, I believe that Arboretum is an incredible public benefit and that we ought to do some share in that. And so I'm in support of the motion. Thank you. And Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And forgive me for maybe asking this again, short memory. But the timing of this, they're continuing to fundraise through the summer and the fall, correct? Correct. Just nod your head. Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm just making the point of I'm supportive as well. People use the Arboretum as a tremendous tourism asset. It's an asset to the students at UK for sure, not to mention a number of people that I know when I'm on that side of town. I go walk to the Arboretum. I don't live close to it, but when I'm close, I go use it. So I'm in support of the one-time funds. I'm hesitant to support it today, given the other needs. However, I'd like to still consider it for certain at firm balance, or maybe even later today, for one-time use costs. So while I won't support it right now, I'm for it coming back in another conversation at some point. Thank you. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. so if you would log in with your vote. That vote reflects failure of the motion. Excuse me. It's 11.59. Perhaps this is a moment to suggest a break for lunch. 45 minutes or an hour? I see someone says 30. That's not enough. Excuse me? Let's try and. so Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. Welcome back everybody. Welcome back. I think we're ready to reconvene. And we were continuing the list of budget stabilization recommendations. The next item is one that, again, Council Member Lamb is not able to be present for. Is someone else? Kathy? Is there a motion on the Lexington History Museum? Yes. So moved. I have a motion for the 1.6. Is that correct? Well, we'll start with that. Motion for 1.6. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Yes. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do want to make an amendment to that, to reduce that. But before I do, I want to give a little bit of background. We had talked about looking for temporary museum space. and we have been working and they have agreed to enter into discussions for the Bluegrass with Bluegrass Trust for the Thomas Hunt Morgan building and so we're moving towards that what I want to do is request support on behalf of Councilmember Lamb who could not be here and we wanted to look at the request of bringing it down to seven hundred and five hundred thousand five hundred I'm sorry seven hundred five five hundred thousand and this would be for three years for the support for staffing which is a critical need to get fundraising going to get the materials into the museum and then what we'll do is that the fourth quarter quarter when we look at fund balance consider the other money's going towards the lease okay and what was that can you repeat the number again yes it's 705 500. 705 500. so so moved amendment i have a motion to amend is there a second second i have a motion in a second the discussion on the motion councilmember baxter thank you vice mayor i was wondering is there somebody that can explain to me why we are funding three years like in one chunk and not it's just it just seems like a whole lot of money to commit for three years and I'm just wanna I know that was there like plan but yeah it was originally presented as a three-year and I think that really had to do with ARPA okay you originally came forward with this proposal okay so if for your plan so if we're discussing them moving forward with the potential like temporary location did they require that amount of funding at this point in time the the funding was going to go for the staff because they're not staff locally not staff right now okay yeah all right thank you it was a three year to get things going because you know obviously one year up and going and then okay a little bit more length there to make things happen Okay, thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I appreciate you bringing this, Council Member Foreman. A few questions I have is, you know, we set aside $6 million for nonprofits to compete, and I think they can go up to half a million dollars. And I've told Explorium that, I've told all these nonprofits, and I have a problem. We're sitting here giving, and I think it's a great program. I mean, I'd explore them not to come here, which they could have come here and had the same argument. Everybody had the same argument. They're going to apply for that other money, I'm hoping. Why aren't they going to apply for that other money, the $500,000 that we have? They weren't eligible by the criteria to do that. Are they not a non-profit? They are a non-profit, but there are some stipulations with having to have a building right now or having to be entered into a lease right now. or had been into it i'm sorry i think it was a three year is that correct three years a day had to have been into a lease already again i think to be clear it was for capital improvements yes not for staffing that that that i thought that money was for capital improvement if we're going to move into a new location i thought it was going to help pay for some of that well this is that seven hundred thousand was going to pay for some of that new location if i'm correct CL Hamilton, isn't that one of the priorities that they can be eligible to fight for on that? That they can apply for? So if that is true then, maybe we don't need to give them the $700, maybe we just need to deduct the $500, huh? So just to clarify, for the requirements in terms of they can not use it to pay for a lease. one of the requirements for the non-profit capital grant project they cannot use it to pay for a lease so it it can be for the building but it cannot be for they can use it to acquire a building as in purchase but they cannot use it for the payment of a lease okay so have they already acquired this bill i think they acquired a building so if they can use this money to acquire a building is this going to be part of this money to acquire a building the 750 can i answer that No, this money is just to find a temporary place, and that money would not even be considered until the fall as part of what we're doing today. We're right now trying to get the monies to bring in staff to start fundraising and doing a lot of the work that needs to be done. And then in the fall, go to fund balance and consider the lease that hopefully we'll have entered into with the Thomas Hunt Morgan House. so when you say temporary they're looking for a temporary spot for a while and then they're gonna go look for a permanent spot and this money is to help pay for the temporary spot concurrently what's the one they got now concurrently to get things up and going they need some place to have a museum and they have a small office right now but it doesn't accommodate any of the artifacts and some of the records and historical items but they cannot do the ARPA. I'm sorry, well the nonprofit monies for capital. Okay thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you Vice Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to amend the amendment and make the entire allocation contingent upon an execution of an agreement between the administration and the history museum for a business plan that would account for the long-term sustainability of their ability to move forward. I have a motion to amend. Is there a second? Real quick, may the council administrator check with me on this, but I don't think we still have a motion to amend this amount that has not yet been voted on. I can wait. I asked if I could. It's an amendment to the amendment. Okay. So is there a second? Second. Thank you. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Reynolds. So would that be a plan that would be discussed and if the implementation of the plan is not followed then their funding would be contingent on that? Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Council Member Plowman. Council Member Bledsoe, can you repeat what she just said? You're asking for a business plan? I'm asking for, yes, between the History Museum and the administration so that they can actually understand all the things that are going to go through with that. So I think there's a number of people that have questions about sustainability, long-term sustainability, their business plan to make it actually work. And so given that we have all those questions, rather than us try to negotiate them, allow the administration to sit down with them and come up with a business plan and plan to move forward. And if they feel good about that, that money can continue on a year-to-year basis. But if not, it gets us out of those details. Because otherwise, I'm going to vote no, quite frankly. And I'm afraid it won't have sustainability. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. Thanks, Vice Mayor. Would this agreement that they came to in this sustainability, would that come back to us at any point for approval? or would it just be that it's already pre-approved if they can reach something with the administration? I didn't really have a preference. I'm just curious. I'm happy to have it come back if that would be easier. I think we've done with the committee quite a bit. Maybe our attorney will answer the question for me. So it will be the case on I believe most all of these that you will have another item in front of you at some future point in time to actually distribute the funding depending on what you're talking about. In this particular case, if there is an agreement, you all would be at a future point in time voting on an agreement to give them a vote. This just simply basically allocates the funding for this use. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Plum, additional? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was just going to mention, Councilmember Bledsoe, that we did go through the strategic plan that does address a lot of the things that would be a part of moving forward. So that has been out there. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Legree. I just have a clarifying question about the process. Based on an email that we received from Councilmember Lamb, it sounds as though these funds, the amended funds of $705,500 would provide $346,500 for three years of staffing and $359,000 for the first year of leasing negotiations. So I guess my question is about time sensitivity and about the business plan, would we want the business plan first and then we would just put this 705 aside, contingent upon that plan and feasibility and sustainability, is that correct? Even if it's a three year plan or five year plan? I don't know who would answer that. I guess I'll try. Yeah, I think so. I think that's the intent, is that we hold the resources so they're available. But that we, given the fact that some of these negotiations aren't final, they're not ready, that we wait until we see that we have a plan in front of us. And that would have to be brought back to just what David Barber said. So that plan would have to be produced fairly swiftly if we're talking about these funds right here. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I second this motion, but I have a question. So the administration, if we vote on it, is saying if we're going to give you the money, you all got to figure out how to make this work? Or does it come back to the council and then we vote on it then? Or we've already voted on it and the administration will find a way to work with it and come back to us and then we vote on it again? Or are we just going to go on and prove this money and they're going to go on and find a way to make this work? Either way, we have to vote on it eventually. Okay. I didn't know how the administration felt about that. If they're ready to take off something. I just wanted to be told to make this work, is my question. I think we can get with the History Center right away and work out. Like the questions I would want to see is exactly how much are you paying the staff to do what? What is your lease cost? How long are you in a long term lease? How much obligation are we going to be have to assume if we do this? And those are some of the basic questions that we will want to look at and I think we can do that really quickly. And then I would feel more comfortable coming back and saying this would be way before you adjourn for the summer. coming back and saying to you, here's what we have found and here's what we think. Okay, I'm good. Now don't you all understand. If that suits the council. Okay. Thank you. I see no further requests for comments. If we can have a screen, this is on the amendment to approve the 705.500 with conditions as specified. in terms of negotiation with the administration. I think that's correct. So if you would log in with your vote. We're missing one. Who's not? Okay. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That brings us back to the, I believe, the underlying motion, which is now to approve the original amendment. Are we back on? To reduce it to 705. To reduce, yes, to reduce 705 with conditions at this point. So there's still an amendment to reduce it to 705. All those in favor, please log in. I need a 14th vote. Who can't vote? And raise your hand. Council Member Ellinger is a yes. Okay, we'll record that. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That brings us now to the underlying motion, which is as amended. Any further discussion? Seeing none, please log in with your vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next item is to allocate $5 million for retention pay to public safety employees. Is there a motion? I have a motion and I have a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Thank you, I brought this to you all a couple weeks ago. And as you know, this is for all public safety critical needs for hiring as what we're seeing now with the police. We're 100 and something short. 9-1-1, we're 35-40 short. And with the jail, we're over 100 short. And the fire is eventually said they're going to be coming short. And history is repeating itself here, and this is the reason I brought this to you all. Back in the 90s, late 90s, we didn't have a collective bargain. We were losing all our police officers. We'd get them certified here. They'd go through the classes. They'd stay here for a year. then they go to another county and the county will hire them at a larger pace not have to pay for them to get the training that where the bulk of the cost is. We're going back to that. I thought when we passed the collective bargain that worked for many years that worked to keep that from happening. We were keeping our folks higher than most people around us and it was working. Well, it has gone backwards now. There's a lot of these employees, officers, they're going through our training. We're investing a lot of money. They stay here a year, two years. Then they'll go to another county making a lot more money. So this money is to help them and our fire department and our 911 and especially our correction officers. We don't know what's going to happen when this study comes in on the jail, so it's good to have this money aside because they may restructure that whole jail because it's not working now, and they may have to come with another way to do it. So I make this motion. I still think it's a little short, but I'm going to stick with the $5 million and so move. Thank you all. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Maloney, thank you for bringing this forward. Wholeheartedly support it. I think there's been a lot of conversation of folks around the horseshoe here of making it even more, and we think that we may need more. At this time, I agree. I think let's try $5 million and then see if we need to fund that more down the road we can. If you would accept a friendly amendment, you have here a one-time payment for staying on the job, and I think that we have a lot of issues with both recruitment and retention, and so I don't want to be so rigid that that's the only avenue that we can give the administration to keep these good folks on the job and to find good folks to come join them. So if you would accept an amendment to the language, that it be $5 million for retention and recruitment in public safety where low staffing is critical to safe operations. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll have a voting screen, please. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. I want to bring us back to the original motion as amended. Further discussion? Vice Mayor, if I could. Yes, sir. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, colleagues, for supporting that amendment. because I think while Councilman Maloney has identified particular departments and particular needs, I would like for the administration, I think we would all agree to come up with the most flexible, the best way to spend this money that keeps and recruits good people because we desperately need it. And we don't know where that's going to shift. And we see specific needs in front of us right now. But as this rolls out, there may be other needs in other departments in public safety. And so we just want this to be something, in my opinion, that the administration can do everything that we can to make sure we fill these vacancies and we operate safely our public safety departments. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Maloney and Council Member Worley, for the amendment. I do support this and think it is needed, but to Council Member Worley's point, you know, right now we're focused on public safety, I think, which is the need, but I think there may be a couple of other divisions within city government that have low staffing as well. So if there's a way to look at a policy or to create a threshold where we can address similar issues throughout government, I think it'd be beneficial. So if you can take that in consideration going forward, I think it'd be beneficial. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? If not, Councilman Maloney, would you mind taking the chair again? Sure, Mayor. I'm sympathetic with the underlying motion and I'm also sympathetic to the sentiments that have been expressed that while we do need to focus on public safety, there are other aspects of city government that are facing some of the similar challenges. So I would make a motion to amend so that it includes an emphasis on public safety, but includes other divisions of government. So move. Do we have a second? The lack of second, I didn't hear one. So back to you. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you Vice Mayor and I sympathize with the intent of that and I think one of the things about that $5 million that we've talked about for the compensation study and other HR policies I think there's a lot of HR policies we should overlook or look at all over to be honest with you we don't operate like the private sector and we're not intended to that being said recruitment and retention in every area is could use some review not to mention maybe some looking at different kinds of benefits that we give our employees that may make more sense than financial ones I think all of which needs to be considered I think comes member Brown's point about other areas of government or low staffing is there I think we have a problem in a couple other areas that need to be addressed that being said I think the most critical thing right now is the low staffing in those three areas that are paramount to the charter of what the city is supposed to do and right now we're not executing in those areas very well and it's being felt very strongly I think in the public and that's why I'm supportive of the issue Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed to speak. If we can have a voting thank you screen, council members, log in with your votes. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. So our next is enhanced school crosswalks. Is there a motion? Move to approve. A motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. I have a screen, please. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. That allows us to move to the next item, which is $1 million for land acquisition for fire services. Is there a motion? I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. I just need, I want to support this. I just want to know, where are we on the number? I mean, we started off $25 million. Where are we now? So I can get an idea. With budgets, remaining a budget stabilization would be $15,629,328. If you're including the mayor's proposed budget, then it would be, I'm sorry, $3,036,914. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, if we can have a voting screen, please. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next is $265,000 for downtown park improvements. Is there a motion? Yeah. Yes, sir. Vice Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to amend that amount down to $110,000. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. I think it's not amend. The motion is to bring the. Yeah, a motion for 110,000. 110, thank you. Is it a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll have a voting screen. Still need one vote. Thank you, that vote reflects passage of the motion. Next is it was put on as an amended number, I believe. The motion was for 110, not for 2. The way we've been doing it is amending down and then voting on it, but I think if you call it, if you call it. Yeah, I think it works that way as well. It's a motion, a positive motion for that amount. LexArts Master Plan, is there a motion? So moved. Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Plowman. Yes, Vice Mayor, I'd like to make an amendment, and that would be to reduce, at this point, the amount to $300,000. And the reason being is that was what the cost was going to be to do a plan about these districts. If you remember in the presentation, we talked about creating districts, downtown districts, such as Distillery District. We had Visit Lex involved, and we had Downtown Lexington Partnership and several other partners. And so what we can do is take a look at this plan and then revisit this again with fund balance in the fall after we have the plan and more details. So that was my amendment, so moved. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Legree. I'm sorry. I just, Vice Mayor, wanted a clarification. And what was the amount that you said, Council Member Plowman, that you amended it down to for now? 300,000 is the cost of moving forward with a plan. Okay, thank you very much. No further discussion. If we can take a vote on the amendment to the motion. Motion to reduce the agreement. Now that vote reflects passage of the motion. That will bring us to the underlying motion as amended, Council Member Maloney. Thank you. Is the mayor, Heather Lyons on board with the $300,000 to work together? I mean, it's just a different group that's going to be doing this. I'm actually meeting with Heather Lyons on Friday. and a meeting with heather lyons on friday and yes she so they know nothing about the 300 000 yet do they the administration and the mayor and them because i see this as a combination of partnership with everybody my question is i haven't seen heather and i'm here yet to support this well i think there'll be a lot of partners that are involved in this and of course the city would be a be we're the main partner here we're the ones got the money and the mayor is the bulk of the art is you have a whole department i just want to know where they are on this well i believe they'll there'll be an extension of an invitation to the city obviously with heather and her role and heather sits on the lexarts board and lexarts will be the fiduciary agent on this there's there's a lot of folks that'll be at the table and this goes back to the arbitral over the university of kentucky usually you have university of kentucky here asking for money and make these things work I would love to see somebody in the mayor's administration saying, we're looking forward to partnership in making this work. And I don't see that. And that's my question. And I don't know who from the administration can answer that because I have a problem voting for something that we are the bulk, even though I support art and everything, but we have the bulk come from that department. And we don't have them on board with it. That's a questionable mark to me. So if I had the support from the administration, I'd be interested in hearing that. The plan has not even been started yet, and of course there will be folks that will be involved, and yes, the city will be there. I'll be there. Heather will be there, and the city is very much tied into this. It's our downtown. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to let everybody know that LexArts is actually a part of our budget process, and they came to my link, which is the general government link, as a partner agency. They did request additional funding above what they typically get. And we, in our link, we gave them the same amount as they had previously gotten, knowing that they also had this additional request in. So I'm going to support this to support their efforts, but I do want to let you know that they are a part of our budget process as a partner agency. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak, if we can have a vote on this. That vote reflects passage of the motion, thank you. Next is funds for the corridor's master plan, is there a motion? Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll take an electronic vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. And next is allocate 2.5 million to the Distillery District Foundation. Is there a motion? So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to make it a friendly amendment here and lower, decrease the amount to $750,000. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Council Member McCurran, is that going to reach their goals? Because they came in with two million, you're taking a big jump. Sir, can you repeat? I'm sorry. 750,000 gonna reach what they're asking for, their goals? It's a start towards that goal. I'd like to come back in the fall with the remaining fund balance that we have and potentially further ask. This is a great start though. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. We can have a vote. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. That brings us to the end of that list. And now- Vice Mayor, we need a motion on the original- I'm sorry, the underlying motion. A vote on the original motion. Okay, we're back on the underlying motion as amended. No further discussion, please log in with your vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. I believe, as I said, that completes that list. The next consideration would be the budget stabilization funds that are included in the mayor's proposed budget. Councilmember Baxter asked for an update on the balance. So the remaining balance is $13,374,328. If you include the mayor's proposed items, is $781,914. Thank you. Council Member Maloney? Yes, sir. It goes back to what I brought up a little bit earlier about the home affordable housing that I originally started with 10 million but Susan, Councilmember Lamb knocked it down to 8 million. I like to still have that discussion and go on record where I am on that and that means we had, Susan Lamb made the motion to move it from 8 to 10 and you all were sitting here and everybody sat here and we had a whole room full of people and they agreed with it and that was during the budget discussion. Council Member Maloney, if you would like to make a motion for discussion- Eight million dollars, Council Member Lamb. For the, this is for budget stabilization funds? No, for the housing, homeless. Where is that money? I mean affordable housing, eight million dollars for affordable housing. From what fund? Budget stabilization. From budget stabilization. I have a motion, is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. So discussion on the motion. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I brought the $5 million up because there's a crisis going on with the police. I think this is the second biggest crisis we're going right now is affordable housing. I know you all put $10 million off of money in there, and it goes back to the point I made. You all keep saying we're doing all these tax credit, but it's only helping people from 60% to 80% of our immediate income. and helps certain people at 30% of area of medium income who are on Section 8 can get vouchers that can go up to those 60 and 80%. The group that's being left out is the 60 below. And these nonprofits out there, they can make these things work, and I used to work for one, and we were very creative in helping people with very low income like that in affordable housing. So that's the reason I'm putting this $8 million. I still think it's a major crisis and it's the second biggest crisis other than what we're dealing with the public safety. So that's why I push for that. We need to keep funding affordable housing. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Ellinger, since this is Council Member Maloney's motion, And I would like to speak to it, would you mind taking the chair? Certainly. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate the intent of the motion. And I think it's fair to say that I've been an advocate for affordable housing since before I was on council, and I understand the need. It's important to note that roughly half of the money that's been spent by the Affordable Housing Fund at this point has benefited people at 60 and below AMI. It's also important to note that the additional $10 million that's already been allocated, we believe, I believe in my conversation with Rick McQuady, that there is demand for that. but I'm not sure that another $8 million at this point is warranted. And if we were to, at this point, vote in favor of that $8 million, we have a big task at hand in terms of meeting the total that's available from the Budget Stabilization Fund, given what the mayor has proposed. So as much as I hate to be in this position, I'm going to have to vote no on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Now we're here to linkage the chair. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Maloney, for bringing this motion forward. But not to be completely repetitive of what the Vice Mayor said, mayor said. I think we got quite a few funds in the affordable housing fund now and trying to find ways to spend it and address that group that needs the most attention right now. But I'm concerned that if we fund this amount now that it will create a challenge for us to fund some of the other items that the mayor has pre-funded in her budget. Affordable housing being one of them and some other initiatives I think are valuable so I'm not going to support this motion thank you thank you I see nobody else signed up to speak we can have a vote please that vote reflects failure of the motion thank you and then Now, somewhere in the packet there's information about the mayor's proposed budget and the budget stabilization items. Unless anybody objects, we'll take the same exact approach that we've been taking, which is to consider them in the order they are on your sheet. Is there, if there are concerns, I'd like, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. I completely understand the intent. However, I think the budget links did discuss each one of these budget stabilization items in their budget and are prepared to deliver them as recommendations to the budget link report outs, which might provide a little more context than us going one by one. That might just suggestion. Thank you. That makes sense to me. So we will go, unless there's objection, we'll go to the budget links reports. I think starting with, I don't know what. I'll be starting. Finance, economic development, and planning link report out. Vice Mayor, Council Member Lamb asked me this morning if I would do this since she had a family emergency. So I will do my best to give this. Committee members were Council Member Lamb, who was a chair, myself, and Council Member Reynolds. And I will ask Council Member Reynolds if I need help to step in at any point. Our link agenda is on page 19 on who we dealt with, was with finance, the chief development officer, the non-departmental and the proposed items from budget stabilization. The next page had our budget overview and it looked at the fiscal year 22 adopted in fiscal 23 mayor's proposed budget and the variance on how much it has increased in each one. The first one that we dealt with was the Finance Commissioner's office and we accepted the mayor's proposed budget it was a 1% increase. The next one was the accounting and that was 11% increase and we accepted the mayor's proposed budget. The next one was budgeting and we accept the mayor's proposed budget and that was also 11% increase. The next one was central purchasing. We accept the mayor's proposed budget that was a 13% increase. Then we looked at the revenue and we accept the mayor's proposed budget and and that was a 17% increase. And you can see the highlights there at the bottom was the software upgrade, which is 770,000, and then we refund a staff assistant senior for 53,000. The next one was the Office of Economic Development. This was a big one. This was a 261% increase. And one of the recommendations that the link made, as you can see on the right, was to increase the funding for one-stop shop online services by $50,400. So that would break down to three years of $16,800. To add three additional languages to the software platforms includes Lexington's top four languages. And then the next issue with a bullet point was includes language access requirements in the RFP for the one-stop shop online service software. And the next page, it goes through the highlights of the one-stop shop online services was $350,000. $50,000 for sustainable growth, $3 million for the infrastructure investment fund, and $1 million for the Bluegrass Ag Tech Development Corporation. The next one was planning, and we accepted the mayor's proposed budget. And then we had the non-departmental ones. This was an 8% increase and we accept the mayor's proposed budget. And then we had the next one, which was a 14% increase and we accepted the mayor's proposed budget. And we looked at the mayor's proposed budget for the budget stabilization. We came up with a process that if all three agreed, that was a strong support. If two agreed, that was support. And if one person out of three agreed, that was soft support. As you can see from the four items here, the one-stop shop online services for $367,200 was strong support. The sustainable growth for $50,000 was for strong support. The infrastructure investment fund for $3 million was support. And the Bluegrass AgTech Development Corporation, $1 million was soft support. The last page is the recommendations as I've gone through. and with that I'll open up for questions. Thank you. Questions, comments, Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I'm looking at the what's included in the $12,592,000 as far as what was coming out of stabilization and I see the 3 million and the 1 million and the 1 million and you've approved those obviously and they were in the 12-5 then I see the 50,000 sustainable growth what was that in the 12 million five or is that something new and how did you arrive at that as a new item? I think I know the answer, but I'd rather ask the budget to verify that. Sustainable growth was in the budget for the $50,000. And what we asked was if we put in for the extra money, the $50,000 for the languages. would have been not in the budget. Yeah those those are two different things they're both 50,000 or the right out but that was in the budget. We had that within the budget in several other areas and so you this is just a new addition and we'll get the correct answer here. The $50,000 for the sustainable growth when When we talked about that, when we talked about all of these items, we tried to categorize them where we thought that they might lend themselves based on timing. And so the things that were one-time expenditures, we tried to attribute to a one-time funding source such as budget stabilization. That particular item is actually in that same presentation is in the balance and carry forward of the $8.1 million from the prior year fund balance that was not needed. It is a one-time funding source or a carried forward funding source, but it is not on that same 12.5 slide that you all are discussing as far as budget stabilization, if that answers your question. Well, it answers part of it. Why did you go over and beyond? You were just looking at the mayor's 12.5. Why did you go over and beyond with another $50,000? And the same question on the $67,200 on one-stop shop. Both of those items are new. They aren't in the mayor's budget. And they're new items that come out of your links after second thoughts. It wasn't your first links. It was your second links. All of those items were in the mayor's proposed budget, with the exception of the increased cost of the one-stop shop online, which allowed for the additional languages. Which is the? It's part of the $367,200. $200 is new. A portion of that, $50,400. $50,400 for the three languages. That's the only thing that's new. That wasn't in the mayor's proposed budget. That's correct. That's the only thing we added. so council member the the fifty thousand for the sustainable growth program was in the budget request and was in the mayor's proposed budget the additional money was the link committee was really interested in the potential for additional translation services related to the one on the virtual one-stop system and expanding the the language options that we had that's the additional 50 that you're seeing that was not part of the original mayor's proposed budget right right that's all I'm asking what new monies over and above everything we've done up until the second links and that would be the fifty thousand four hundred for the three additional languages I I don't see that number, 50,400. It's 16,800 for three years. I see 300,000 in the mayor's 12.5 million, and I see where you've come. I mean, she requested it, the 367,200, so I see 67,200 as new money. She requested 367 but she only funded 300,000 even. So you're coming up, your links committee coming up saying we want to give her 67,200 more on that one. Well I think it should say 350,400 instead of 367,200 I believe. but can we can we I'm sorry can we have conversation on the mic only yeah well I'm not getting an answer that's let's see if I see if we guess I'm thinking what happened is when it should have said when you look at the highlights on page 27 it says one-stop-shop online service 350 400 and when it came over to be transposed on this page on page 31 it should have said 350 400 instead of 367 200 I think there is a print on that I think I think the administration is working on straightening this out for us so if we'll just hold on a minute plus It should have been $300,000 plus $50,200 or $400. So it should actually be $350,000, $400,000 instead of $367,000. $200,000. So I'm not sure where, you're right, I'm not sure how that $367,200 got there. Okay. You might tell us how. Okay. So if you go back to the spreadsheets that you all are working on, there's a column that says included in MPB 1101, and there's $300,000 included in the mayor's proposed budget for the one-stop shop. In the change column, it's adding an additional $50,400. So I'm not sure. I don't know who typed the slide with the $367,200. I think that's the confusion. That's where the mistake is. It should be $350,400 instead of $367,200. That's where the area is. So the $50,400 is in a change column? Have we already? That is what we're asking the committee to look at that's above what the mayor proposed because that goes to the three languages that we wanted to add for translation. So that was something that the committee, the link thought, should be added to it outside of what the mayor presented. $50,400. Council Member Ellinger, as link chair, if you're going to recommend it, you need to recommend it as a motion with where you're taking the money from for that additional $50,400 so we can discuss it as a new item. Okay, and at this point I will make a motion to take $50,400 from budget stabilization to add to the one-stop shop online services. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Congressman McCluburn, you're not up for that. Let me take you. Council member Maloney. To clear up council member Brown's concerns, you already put them on a late item, that 50,000, it's not on late item. Where is the 50,400 coming from? That link's new. It's coming out of the way. Yeah, but the link has to get from somewhere. I'm sorry, can you just repeat? Can I get the administration? I thought there was a late walk on. I heard something was a late walk on that just came on as part of it. I think we're clear. Okay, yeah. It's page 109 of your packet. Okay, so the motion on the floor is to add $50,400 for the one stop shop. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, we have an electronic vote please. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. That ends my report. I just to clarify, I think when we were discussing initially we had had the 67,200 and then we decided to back that down a little to 50,400. just got lost in translation when we put it on this on page 31 so i think that's how it ended up there so that ends my report thank you very much i have law now that i just want so are you all our assumption in the administration is that as you go through these links if you're not bringing an issue up you're okay with everything else because there are things that the mayor there have to be specific motions from the links to make any changes okay but otherwise what's on the link report is is acceptable to the council i can make a motion um to accept the link as amended okay i don't know that you have to but we just want to make sure that that's what you're intending to do so procedurally we may not need to do that but um it probably won't hurt to have that on the record so the motion is to approve the link If the motion is to approve the link recommendations as amended, is there a second? Yes. Can I, I'm sorry. Can we have one conversation? Thank you. Is there a second to the motion to accept the link recommendations as amended? Second. Now is the discussion on the motion. Councilmember Kloiber. So I had a question about an item in the link's recommendation, so I guess this is an appropriate time to discuss it. Yes, sir. One of the items, the Bluegrass AgTech funding had soft support, and I've had a lot of questions about this particular thing, seeing as how Alltech moved to Nicholasville, and we've had issues retaining that kind of AgTech here in Lexington. What was it that you guys found, if anyone from the link would like to speak to, why there was soft support as in only one out of three of you supported that item? Would someone from the link like to address that question? Council member Reynolds? I do think that AgTech is important. So I will say my soft support of this issue was I just felt like it wasn't the time to spend the money on that right now, based with the other options of things that we had going on. And it didn't seem like there was a clear plan of how that money was going to be used, at least that we saw. So that was kind of my stance. And I'm sorry, the only two of our members are here today, so I can't really get a full picture. of what we were thinking. No, that's good. I guess my question has always been around, you know, exactly how this would be used. Did you guys find out if there was, in fact, going to be matching money from the state on this particular fund? Again, is there anybody from the LINC who would like to respond? No, but I think we can ask the administration to address that. Council member as you probably saw last week Dr. Lyons Commissioner quarrels being Cox and the mayor were at the all tech one conference to discuss this and announce it so dr. Lyons has asked his team to lead the initial marketing and legal work on this Commissioner quarrels is taking a look at how this can be be promoted not only locally but around the state now this money would only be used locally for local initiatives and Dean Cox is looking at the research components and office space and potentially long term being able to include money in her budget for this so all the partners are on board there is going to be a consultant slash CEO brought on board in the very near future that will launch launch the day-to-day activities of this and that that consultant slash CEO will also help lead the effort to find the permanent CEO who can move this this effort even further but no yes there is the opportunity for for state matching dollars and I think you'll hear more about that in the coming days so is this setting aside a million dollars for us to wait until these things have happened and we have a better you said a CEO will be an interim CEO would be brought up or is that something this million dollars is funding these these this million dollars was not initially seen as the seed match if you will this was meant to get this effort started and get it focused and moving forward the additional money would be more likely to occur quite frankly with this money having already been put in place and seeing that the effort is getting off the ground. Okay thank you. Thank you. Council member Fred Brown. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to the motion as amended. And we'll need a voting screen, approval of the report, recommendations. Still need one vote. Got it. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next is General Services and Social Services Link, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And first of all, I'd like to thank my fellow Link members, David Kloiber and Kathy Plowman for their help and work on this. And I'd like to thank the administration as well for there to answer all of our questions as we went through the process so we will begin so here's an overview of everything that's in our link general services social services housing advocacy and community development and our partner agencies here's an overview of general services you'll see a big jump with facilities and fleets i'll go into more detail with that here in just a minute but we are recommending accepting mayor's proposed budget so under the commissioner's office we are recommending accepting the mayor's proposed budget just some highlights this includes funding for july 4th and our newly adopted juneteenth events as well as $250,000 for a space study of the government center. Next, with facilities and fleet management, we are recommending accepting the proposed budget. This is where I mentioned a moment ago about some increased funding. We have now brought all of our vehicle fuel and maintenance costs from all divisions under facilities and fleet management budgets. So there's a huge jump there as well as a lot of cushion for fuel cost. We're also approving or recommending approval of general government fleet replacement and repair of the government center elevators. In parks and recreation, we are recommending approval of the mayor's budget. Some of the additions for this year are some new golf carts with the understanding that the golf revenue will cover the cost of the equipment, a teen camp program, and the rest of the funding for the Charles Young pump room at the Splash Pad. so here's the overview of the housing advocacy and community development we are recommending accepting the mayor's proposed budget there in the commissioner's office recommending acceptance of the proposed budget it's also funding the housing advocate that we are looking forward to having on board In grants and special programs, we're recommending accepting the proposed budget, putting $100,000 in the neighborhood match grant, and $1 million towards the Lexington neighborhood investment initiative. In historic preservation, we are accepting the proposed budget. Code enforcement, accepting the proposed budget. community resident services accepting the proposed budget and two hundred thousand dollars is included in emergency financial assistance and that's funded through ARPA next up is the overview of social services and we're recommending acceptance of the proposed budget and social services administration we're recommending acceptance of the budget 3 million of the ARPA funds is committed to social services personnel. In aging and disability services, we're accepting the mayor's proposed budget. The same with family services. Youth services recommending acceptance. Our summer youth program is being funded by ARPA, but the amount funded in FY23 budget is a fully staffed program. And then ARPA, we went on and approved that for FY24 already as well. And our partner agencies, we're recommending the mayor's proposed budget. However, we have a recommendation for the administration to obtain quarterly financial reports from the Human Rights Commission. A little bit of detail on that. They are behind several years on their financial statements to the city, and they have been given a deadline to get all their audits completed and turned into the city by the end of June of 23. and so we would like to see updates throughout the year let's see what else and then going forward to our support as council member Ellinger said strong support was three votes support was two we didn't have any soft support and that's it i'll open it up for questions thank you uh would you like to make a motion to have the council i'm sorry there's the administration has a question comment information uh the mayor's proposed budget includes funding for the history museum of seventy thousand dollars for staffing and so the question is is the item that was just recently approved does that replace that or would that be in addition to as we were approving it i was assuming that it would be in addition to but i am welcome to have that conversation uh council member bledsoe then i'd make a I want to make a motion to remove 70,000 from the budget and put it back into the balance. So moved. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Councilmember Kloiber. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just one point of clarification since I was on the link and asked a lot of questions about this particular item. The money that the mayor put in her proposed budget was mostly primarily for storage of the items to preserve them going forward. And since the item that we approved out of budget stabilization is contingent upon their plan going forward, I think regardless of that being approved, we should still preserve these items going forward. So is that? I'm sorry. Let's move to the administration. Weigh in. The request from the History Museum for the administration's proposal was actually for staffing. I know, and when we talked to them, we asked them what the cost would be to continue to keep things in storage over that period of time, and those numbers lined up pretty closely, if not exactly the same. The item that has been proposed by the mayor and the mayor's proposed budget is for the executive director for $70,000. dollars well then I will remove my comments and say that perhaps we should think about funding some amount of storage to make sure these items are preserved but not necessarily to fund staff until such times they can show a plan that warrants it so I guess if I was going to amend that could we amend that the motion to state that these funds are only for the storage of the items or do we want to not want to get into the weeds right now you know what I'm going to stop talking. Thank you. Council Member Curran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would just ask my colleagues to keep the funding here. I know that the request that they asked for from budget stabilization was for the assistance of finding a new location and even after lowering that cost. Any additional funds to them right now could be extremely helpful to seeing this museum opening for our future. I think $70,000 could potentially help greatly to them. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? The motion on the floor is to delete the $70,000 allocation in the mayor's proposed budget to the history museum, as I understand it. I'm sorry? I think I understood Council Member Bledsoe to be readdressing the 700 some thousand dollars that was conditionally allocated. So I don't think it was take out the 70 from the Mayor's proposed budget. And maybe the Council Member could, I think she was saying reduce. She said take it out. She said take it out. Because we're going to reduce 700. Misunderstood, I thought, because the question was related to the 700,000 that we had. So that's the clarification, it is to remove 70,000 from the mayor's proposed budget. Before we, I'm sorry, can we take the screen down? Council Member Bledsoe. Yeah, I just, the point is I don't want to fund it twice. So that's why I said remove it. If the negotiations between the history museum and the administration come back to us with we need a new plan, let's use that money that we've already set aside to find a new plan, rather than try to fund this particular line item twice. So there's still options for them to move forward. Is that fair? Okay, thank you. Okay. Any further? Council Member Maloney. I mean, I support your motion. The question I have is we've been paying these salaries every year, and if we take this off now at the end of July 1, this person will not be getting any paycheck if we have not done this study yet because we have not voted on the $700,000. So if I'm wrong on that, please let me know. To me, it just seems like we're taking $70,000 out. We have not voted on the $700,000 until you all come up with a plan, and then it comes back to the council. And then to me, once the council approves it, then the check picks back up. Now, if I'm wrong on that, forgive me. I would support this, but it sounds like to me, you're all going to cut everything off before it goes out. Is that, am I wrong on that administration? I don't know. Vice Mayor, if I may, real quick. I'm sort of mixed up. If you'll just give me, I'm already trying to set up this meeting with the History Museum, and I think I can Zoom with them this week and get this all back and straightened out to you all very shortly. Thank you. Councilmember Baxter. I am so sorry, I apologize. I just found a note that they do expect the $70,000 would be subtracted from the amount that we put through with budget stabilization. So moot point, let's take it out. Thank you. Councilmember Pullman. I was going to say the same thing. They do, they, yeah, they know that this is going to be deducted from the year. Okay. Seeing no one else end up to speak, can we have a screen? This is on the deleting. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Council Member Baxter? I'm sorry, I think we're back to the underlying motion to approve. Do we need a motion to approve first? Is that about the links report? I think, why don't we have a motion to approve the recommendation? I move to approve the link recommendations as presented. I have a motion and a second. Councilmember Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So I was on this link for several years in a row, and so I'm familiar with it. And my question was, last year with Explorium, we actually had suggested that we set up a way to approve their money, that they could kind of try to compete for it for educational funds. And I know we didn't do that this year. And the mayor included in her budget $100,000 more than they received last year. And I was just curious as to why that was. Sure. so we are returning to fy20 funding of the explorium with the understanding that they have a new executive director on board who has been been at the explorium since october of last year they have two full-time and three part-time staff and the the museum itself is in full working order and hasn't been for several years so they are making a very concerted effort to move forward so we felt comfortable as a link accepting the mayor's proposal okay thank you that's helpful and i i have much more confidence in the way things are going as well so i'm excited about that um did were you did you all were you given um financials to look over like from from the explorium in terms of um they're also who's uh donating to them a list of donors and things like that so they just started a campaign or a capital campaign to raise money um they're very forthcoming with their financials they they provided like months worth um so they're i mean they're open book very transparent and i feel confident with everything that they put forth i don't know that i have a list of donors to be frank but i probably could get it okay i appreciate that and that's a that's a big change from the past so i'm glad to hear all of that okay thank you i just was curious sure thank you council member worley thank you vice mayor uh just a point of clarification uh council member uh the link the the highlights and notes say have a the link recommends consideration of bonding for the government center elevators when you as the motion just standing of rec of accepting the link recommendation it was that just an item for for consideration purposes or is that, you're not actually making that motion? It was, it is in the bonding package, isn't it? Yes, ma'am, it's. I believe it's showing that it's being paid with budget stabilization as one of the mayor's proposed budget stabilization items. Yes. I'm happy to actually speak to that footnote because I think it was placed in there because of something I said. When we were going through the items in our package that were being bonded versus those being out of budget stabilization there were several items that we saw on appreciable assets like elevators that were out of budget stabilization instead of out of the bond package it was just a recommendation to maybe look at at moving some of those assets around making sure the things we are bonding our appreciable assets as opposed to depreciating assets that was it so it's just kind of a let's look at the whole bigger picture because we only had that one slice in our link so it was part of the links discussion and want to highlight that discussion to the council but that's not part of the recommendation. Absolutely, that is correct. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Further comments? Seeing none, we'll take an electronic vote. Thank you, that reflects the passage of the motion. Thank you for the report that allows us to move to the general government link. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'll wait for the slides to pop up. Thank you. So first I would like to thank my other committee members or link members, Councilmember James Brown and Vice Mayor Kaye. And I would also like to thank our respective aides for helping us put all of this together and doing all the scheduling and all that, particularly my legislative aide, Leighton Garlington. Thank you. Okay, so next slide. Oh, link agenda. So here's all of the different departments and offices within our general government link. You can see we have all of the constitutional offices, the council clerk, the council office, information technology internal, which includes a number of subgroups, internal audit, the department of law, and the mayor's office. And here is our general fund overview. A lot of change that we are seeing is in personnel. You know that we gave everyone raises. So that is some of the change that you'll see here. Now starting with the constitutional offices, circuit judges is first. One of their new and expanded requests was for a family court specialist. This will allow them to be more expedient in the evaluations that they have to make. So the current staff is unable to maintain the level of evaluations that they need coming in. So this additional funding here, some of the additional funding here would help with that request. Our link is recommending that we accept the mayor's proposed budget for this office. For the Commonwealth's Attorney Office, we are also making the recommendation to accept the mayor's proposed budget. And I should say, if either of my two LINC members want to chime in for anything on any of these offices, please feel free to do so. For the coroner's office, what you see here is the amount that is coming from our general fund. However, when we get to those other buckets of funding like budget stabilization and pre-funding, you'll see the coroner's office appear there as well. But our recommendation is to accept the mayor's proposed budget. For our county attorney's office, one of the particular needs they mentioned was increased need for professional IT services. So that is part of what is included here, but we are recommending accepting the mayor's proposed budget here. And our county clerk's office, Our recommendation is to accept the mayor's proposed budget. And our property value administrator's office, again, we are accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Our council clerk's office, we are accepting the mayor's proposed budget. But I do want to highlight that some of the increase here is funding to cover costs of record intake and storage. And Ms. Allen did a really extensive research, did extensive research work on vetting proposals for this so that we were using our money very effectively. So I want to commend her for that. For the council office, this is where we are going to make one recommendation to increase funding. With our citizens advocate office, our link is recommending that we return that position to a full-time position. With the increased workload that our current citizens advocate has, if you recall last year, we increased her hours by five hours a week so that she could work with our Lexington Police Department on complaints that are coming through from our residents. so she could help educate people on that process but then also help walk them through it. But she is also investigating cases that come from our council offices and other government divisions at a higher rate and really does a lot of research and work on that. And she is also offering to increase community education around her office and what services her offices provide. I know she has attended some neighborhood meetings and things like that to make sure that the community knows what she is available to help with. So aside from that increase, and the numbers are on our final slide, we will be accepting the mayor's proposed budget for all the other items. For information technology administration, we are accepting the mayor's proposed budget, and you'll see that some of that funding comes from different funds there. And computer services, we are also accepting the mayor's proposed budget. As well as for enterprise solutions, so accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Okay, for internal audit, our link has one recommendation to increase funding for required certification and training by five thousand dollars this is because some of the trainings are in person again so they have requested some additional funds to allow their employees to attend those in-person trainings for the Department of Law you can see they have been broken down into a number of different funds but we are accepting the mayor's proposed budget for all of those. And for the mayor's office we are also accepting the mayor's proposed budget and you may recall that some of this funding goes towards one Lexington including it takes a village program, their neighborhood engagement walks, there is a proposed admin position and some grant programs for our community. And we would increase global LECs by two positions. These are program specialists in the area for the Hispanic community and African community. Okay now we're going to look at the different buckets outside of general fund that we were asked to review and you can see on the slide that we have used the same ratings of strong support support and soft support from From the budget stabilization, these are the items that the mayor's proposed budget had in this particular funding bucket. You'll see the corners there, a mobile food truck program that is coming out of the mayor's office in our equity and implementation office particularly. There's a phone system update, a server upgrade, and cyber security upgrades. For the pre-funded items, our link had one item and that is for the coroner's office for morgue tables. And for the fiscal year 22 carry forward, we have a number of items there that you can see on the screen. One Lexington, cybersecurity retainer, website translation, and PeopleSoft improvements. And then our bonded items are the raise grant at $5 million and art installation projects at $1.5 million. That is broken up over two different art projects. One is for the memorial for the pandemic or those lost to the pandemic. and then also an art project for our 250th anniversary. And then our overall recommendations. So we are accepting the mayor's proposed budget for the constitutional offices and the council clerk's office and for information technology administration's office. So that includes IT, computer services, and enterprise solutions and the Department of Law. And then I have a couple of motions to make regarding our additional recommendations. So the first one, can you go back a slide? Thanks. So the first motion that I will make is to restore the Office of the Citizens Advocate to a full-time position in order to accommodate the increased workload and to expand the reach of the office to the general public. You can see on the slide there that this would be an additional increase of $45,075 for total compensation, which includes the benefits, and we would like to make the motion that those funds come from our proposed fund balance. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we have a voting screen. That vote reflects passage of the motion, thank you. Thank you colleagues for that. And my second motion is to increase funding for internal audit for the required certification and training line item to $5,000. Because this is a one time cost at this point, I'm going to make the recommendation that this, or the motion that this comes from. budget stabilization, so moved. Second. Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we have an electronic screen. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. And then we have one final item, you can see at the very bottom of this slide, that is coming out of our committee. This is not a funding request, but a request to place an item in committee. So this is to examine opportunities to relocate programming and or initiatives from the mayor's office to other relevant departments or divisions within LFUCG. I'm going to make the motion to place this item into our general government and social services committee. So moved. Second. A motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Could you just give an example of something? Yeah. As we have been, if you look at the Mayor's Office, there are a lot of programs and initiatives there that we have had discussions across Council of whether those should be under the Mayor's Office or if we should show more long-term support by placing those under divisions or departments that might also be able to support them that have overlapping services. Global Lex might be an example of that. I've heard folks discuss One Lexington as an example, but I would like to have a more intense discussion about what that might look like. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, take a vote. Thank you, that vote reflects passage of the motion. The motion and a second, any discussion on the motion? Councilmember Clover. Thank you, Vice Mayor. There was one item that you had soft support on, and that was the art installations. Does anybody from the link want to speak on that as to why it had soft support or what it was that you guys found in looking into it? I can represent our conversation overall. So there are two art projects in there. They're each funded at $750,000 to commission these projects. Some of the discussion was about the overall amount here, considering all of the priorities that we have and the needs that we have as a community. We also have a 1% for public art fund that comes from our bonded project, so there is the potential to use some of that funding for these. And some discussion about how we would ensure that this funds could support local artists within the community as well. So those are some of the things that we discussed. Okay, but as a whole, the link is still pushing it forward as a recommendation to accept it with the mayor's budget. All right, thank you much. Thank you. Any further discussion? Seeing none, take a vote. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. Thank you. Council members, it's 2.30. Do we want to do at least one more link before we break? I see heads nodding yes. Okay. Well, next would be the CAO and public safety link. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I was nodding my head because I'm ready to go. before we begin though i'd like to i'd like to thank a few people here i'd like to thank councilmember bludsoe and councilmember fred brown for their assistance throughout the link and our legislative aides for all of their help especially alicia larmore for her putting together our packets participate in all the meetings and continuously emailing and texting back and forth with us as we need questions and help answered i'd also like to thank our council administrator and Sean Denny, or sorry, Council Administrator Stacy Maynard, and our financial advisor now, Sean Denny. Thank you for your help through all this, and then the administration as well. We had the CAO and Public Safety link report out this year, which included just those two departments, the CAO and Public Safety. Year over from the fiscal year 22 adopted compared to what's been requested this year, there was a variance of about 14% now if you guys see a number up there it's going to be a little bit thrown off the PDR is that must have been a typo it's not a 934% increase in fiscal year 22 it was two million dollars what was adopted so it was only an increase of about 240 this year 240,000 excuse me As we move through the presentation, we had CAO's department. We moved to accept the mayor's proposed budget. Government communications. We will be moving to support the mayor's proposed budget in this. We're going to have a committee referral that will come out on a discussion on how to communicate better with different boards and broad groups across the board. And then in this section here, this department, there was a $200,000 increase for improved capabilities for audio and visual here in the chamber and in the Phoenix building as well. We've talked about that for several years past of kind of having a chamber-esque in the Phoenix building. This would give that as an opportunity. Human resources. We'll have another committee referral coming out of this, use of adoption funds and how they can roll forward. We will also be moving to accept the mayor's proposed budget. Lex call, we will be moving to accept the mayor's proposed budget. It's going to sound like a broken record here for the next few slides. Purchase of development rights, we just spoke about. It's just a little bit higher than what it was last year, not the 216,000 that you see on the screen. Again, we will be accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Commissioner of Public Safety, accepting the mayor's proposed budget. Community of Corrections, we will be accepting the mayor's proposed budget as well. Enhanced 911, same thing, accepting the mayor's proposed budget. If I'm going too fast and if everybody needs to stop me, just please do. Emergency management, we will have another committee referral coming out from this, review on outdated civil defense ordinance. And then we will also be moving to accept the mayor's proposed budget. Fire and emergency services, accepting the mayor's proposed budget here, and police, same thing. As we get towards the end in the bond project summary, we have a total of $21,630,000 proposed. This is going to be for a purchase of easements for the PDR. Corrections will have a new facility roof, police, purchase of new vehicles, and fire and emergency services, purchase of new apparatus. Proposed items from budget stabilization. As a link, we had strong support for all of the items. We did agree as a link that we wanted to pull them out individually and wait until the very end to make sure that we got through council priorities as well. But we will be supporting the request from budget stabilization with funds being there. Proposed items from pre-funding. We had strong support for this in the amount of $577,400. Moving forward, we had the compensation study implementation of $5 million. We had strong support for this. And then proposed items from bond reallocation of $1,809,848.93, which we will be offering our strong support. And that brings me to the end of our link. I will take any questions or I can make a motion. Thank you. Why don't you make a motion and then we can take it. I move to accept the CAO and public safety link report out, so move. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we can take a vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next, environmental quality and public works. Council member Worley. Thank you Vice Mayor and on behalf of Councilmember Maloney and LeCree we have the Environmental Quality and Public Works link out report thank you to them and to our aides for all their help. The departments that we reviewed, the Commissioner's Office, Building Inspection Engineering, environmental services, streets and roads, traffic engineering, waste management, and water quality. I'm going to, given our time, move through this fairly quickly. You guys can see where we've accepted the mayor's proposed budget. A couple highlights of the mayor's proposed budget in building inspection. There's funding provided for a new building inspector position, which was previously frozen. So I guess it's not exactly a new position, but it's funding of a position. And a replacement of iPads. used for inspection are being funded in engineering there's increased funding for professional services and design services for environmental services we had a request from the corridors Commission for $900,000 for three welcome corridor signs I believe the mayor's proposed budget has one proposed in there we've made that as a recommendation to the fund balance discussion for the fall so on behalf of the link I so move. The motion is there a second? Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? The motion is to approve three and postpone six or post I'm sorry. It's to put the these expenditure of nine hundred thousand dollars for three corridor welcome signs in the fund fund balance discussion. Thank you. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. I guess I do have a question. That vote reflects passage of the motion. In fund balance discussion. In Streets and Roads, some highlights. Funding provided for a new computer analyst position that was previously frozen. Some online CDL training courses. Enhanced routeware programming. Funding for trail maintenance that has been moved to the Division of Parks and Rec. and long line striping funding provided for the mineral severance fund. Given the nature of the discussion, that will come from that other link recommendation of Streets and Roads. I'm going to save that to the end. In traffic engineering, again, we're accepting the mayor's proposed budget, and a highlight in there is funding of a traffic engineering manager, which was previously frozen. And then we've got some new regulatory signs out of the coal severance fund. Waste management. Again, accepting the mayor's proposed budget. You can see a new minimum, increase in wages for a new minimum of $15 per hour. Some of these things we've discussed through our other ARPA discussions. These show up in the budget, amongst some others. Let's see. It's $241. Let's get going. Water quality. there's a link recommendation in here that is not general fund related but this was some cleanup that was requested by the division that we would reduce fund 4051 the water quality management fee fund by 200,000 and increase line item 4051, 30, 3401, 3411, 71299 by the same amounts to clear up an issue in their budget so moved. Motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none take a vote. And I would point out that there's increased funding for the criminal costs of our treatment plants in there as well. I thought that was an important highlight. We taking a vote? Well, I guess we ought to. I had a motion and a second, I believe. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. Councilmember Worley, just real quickly, we've been asked by the administration, your motion to put the $900,000 for corridor signs in the fund balance, are you essentially saying you don't want the one sign that's in the mayor's proposed budget or you want to move the other two? And that could be the way I read that, a clarification. So the one that is in the mayor's proposed budget, we're fine with that. It was the additional asks that we want to be put in the fund balance discussion. Okay. I think the motion was not clear. What's that? I think the motion was not clear, but I think now it's been clarified. Unless anybody objects, we'll assume that vote is still valid. You can see the items that were in the mayor's proposed budget for both the bond and for budget stabilization. And the link supported or strongly supported all of those. I think there is one soft support. That's the welcome sign. Council Member Cloiber. so you can see how we chose to handle that. And then the last recommendation from the link was to increase the paving bond by $2 million. So on behalf of the link, so moved. They have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm just to clarify, are you recommending that the bond payment for that be kept at a budget stabilization for the $2 million? So. The payment, not the 2 million, but the down payment of that. The 236, the fund balance. Is that okay? Fund balance, not budget stabilization. Because it's bond, thank you. Out of fund balance. The debt service said that would come out of fund balance. It could come out of budget stabilization or wherever you want to take it. We can't take it out of budget stabilization. Okay. Council Member Maloney. Just to clarify, didn't we already vote on the $2 million earlier when you took the, and we're coming back to the end of the route? So the interesting and wonderful way that we did this is that there were individual recommendations about budget stabilization, and we had a discussion in amendments, and then now we have link recommendations. And you, as you were on this link, and you also helped recommend this. so again this is another bite at it we talked about consideration and reconsideration in our process today again it we have a budget we have a pavement management plan we have never fully funded it ever we are very very close to fully funding it and I think it's important these are the types of investments that businesses want to see these are the type investments that our constituents want to see how many of us have been given so many accolades and thank you for paving this road or that road this is important and again I know where councilmember Brown is hesitant to reduce to increase the bond anymore some of the items in the bond are necessary large big-ticket items that will never have to worry with again like a roof on the on the jail or at least not for a long time it's an extraordinarily large bond it seems but there's no other additional bonding item that we have added as this council and we're talking two more million dollars that will make an incredible investment in paving if not just the statement that we actually will fund a management plan that we have so we have historically low interest rates that are creeping up on us and they're going to start shooting up on us this is our opportunity to get the best bang for our buck with our bonding package we need this pavement money this is the right thing to do I'll ask you to support it on behalf of the Thank you. Any other council members who wish to speak to the issue? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. And with that, Vice Mayor, that is all the links recommendations. So as amended and approved, I'll move approval of the links recommendation. I have a motion and a second. Discussion of the motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. I need one more vote. Richard? Richard? Council Member Maloney? Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Now it's 247. So the summary of link recommendations, that's just a summary for information, I believe. That would let us move to individual council recommendations. One possibility would be to not adjourn, but to take a break, basically, and if acceptable, reconvene after the work session to try and complete the work today so we don't have to reconvene on Thursday morning. What we have left is individual council recommendations and then any reconsiderations that people want to propose. So, is that, are there any? Second. I don't think we need a motion on this, but I just want to know if there are any objections, any council members from reconvening after work session will not work. Could it be my dream come? Come on, come on, come. Oh, come into my arms. Oh, let me not. Rushing, rushing till life's no fun. All I really gotta do is live and die. But I'm in a hurry and don't know why. Don't know why. I have to drive so fast. My car has nothing to prove. It's not new. But it'll be zero to 60 and 5.2. I'm in a hurry to get things done. I rush and rush until life's no fun. All I really gotta do is live and die. But I'm in a hurry and don't know why. Can't be late. I'm leaving plenty of time Shaking hands with the clock I can't stop I'm on a roll and I'm ready to rock I'm in a hurry to get things done Oh, I'm rushing, rushing to last no more All I really gotta do is live and die But I'm in a hurry and don't know why Oh, you miss. It says I'm running behind. I better hurry to... I can't hold the hurt inside, keep the pain out of my eyes anymore. My tears no longer wait. My Thank you. Thank you. Welcome back. This is a continuation of the Budget Committee of the Whole. And we're now down to individual council recommendations. but I believe. Okay. Individual council recommendations in the packet. Starting at the top. I got the right. Once again, I haven't got it. My staff. My staff. You got it. Okay. Sorry about that, trying to get to the right place in all this packet. The first item, council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This first item, it's actually creating a position within the Department of Social Services to be a site coordinator for the Charles Young Center. This facility has great partnerships throughout government and also in the community. But there is not a person there that staffs that building on a regularly scheduled basis. So this request after talking with the Commissioner, Commissioner Casey Allen Bryant, would help alleviate and address some of the gaps in services that we have at this facility. So with that, I'll make a motion to approve this amount of $82,644 for this is salary and also benefits for this position. And I will say that after HR reviews this position in the roles and responsibilities, there may be some variance in the pay grade and the total position. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney. Council Member, I appreciate it. A couple questions. First of all, where are you going to get the money from? And secondly, why didn't the administration bring this to their budget originally? Why are we doing it now instead of the? So where would this money come from to pay for it? And secondly, why didn't the administration propose this during their budget process? I can't speak to the administration's reason for not proposing it. But I will say that I'm proposing the money come from general fund. and I guess right now maybe the proposed fund balance money to pay for this position. I'd like to know why the administration did not propose this. I usually like to hear the answer why and why we didn't put it in there. We did not propose this. It really never dawned on me and should have dawned on me. We have heard numerous times that this building was not opened on a regular basis, was not closed on a regular basis, was not super advised on a regular basis. We were concentrating on other things in the commissioner's budget, and it just didn't trigger. And then, you know, when I look at these budgets, I usually don't try to add. my object is to come the other way so when council member brown brought this up I really said I can see this because we are not doing especially with the violence in all of the city we are not really got this building really under the control that we need to have it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Brown, for bringing this forward. I've heard a lot from just the different community centers and park buildings that they would like to see the city have more programming and oversight, so I can see why it would be of benefit. I don't know if Commissioner Allen Bryant or someone could explain to me the breakdown of the salary. I was just kind of curious about that, how you landed on that number. I'll take a first stab at it if it helps. So kind of how this is a little different than some of the other community centers is this is one that is under social services. So a lot of community centers that fall under park and recreation, I think there is a position that better describes what they'll do. but looking at positions that fall under the social service category, the position that I found, which is the pay grade in the packet, I think better aligns with what this facility manager will do. But I think once HR has an opportunity to look at it, it may change. But I don't think it won't go up. It has the potential to be reduced in the amount and the pay grade, if that makes sense. Okay. Yeah. It just seemed a little high, but I could be wrong. And then did you decide where it would come from? Because I'm assuming this is an ongoing position and it might be paid with one time money. So I would. Yeah, no, it is going to be reoccurring cost, so it would need to come from general fund. General fund, okay, thank you. Thank you, Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Council Member Brown for bringing this forward. I just have a couple of clarifying questions about maybe what this would look like in practice. You mentioned that this is under social services and you called it a site coordinator and then you mentioned someone to consistently staff the center. It's my understanding that there were some workforce development partners in this same space. Would you be able to elaborate on, or Commissioner, would you be able to elaborate on what this might look like in practice and the difference that it'll make? sure so you can think of charles young center right now as a a building that holds multiple partners in there and none of those multiple partners are actually responsible for that building so they can kind of come and go they can kind of set their own schedule as they please what we need though is someone who is there to direct the traffic to make sure that we have the open communication back and forth between the advisory board charles young center advisory board and social services because what you may not know is that the charles young center is run congruently with that advisory board and the time that it takes to coordinate that itself is is is much needed right now we are doing it when i say we social services myself and my admins are doing it on top of what we are already tasked to do and our other responsibilities for the city. The coordinator can also help bring some outside programming, because right now we do not initiate any programming there, except for the senior center satellite that's there, but again, that's out of aging and disability services. We do not actually initiate any programming there, in which we could, if we had someone who was there full-time who could staff that center who could coordinate that programming who could actually come up with their own programming did i answer your question sufficiently enough you certainly did it sounds like it's going to be a fairly dynamic role and absolutely fill some of these ongoing needs um in the center and um it sounds very positive for the community so thank you for that response thank you might not add one more thing just sorry not to to go on too much about it but also right now whenever we're at tasked with opening the center after hours it it becomes quite a dilemma because again we have our partners who are there for their their roles but if we're asking someone from the outside to come in and do a program there it does become difficult to open and close it when we need to for for external programming and And so this person would help do that as well. Thank you. Council Member McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Commissioner. Thank you for answering most of my questions I was about to have here. Council Member Brown, thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's needed, especially in community centers. My only ask would be that as we look for this position is if we can not just let them design their own hours, but maybe look at nights and weekends too because that's when the youth need somebody in these centers to be open for a safe haven a good opportunity for them to use a gymnasium see some of these activities for families etc but the doors are closed at 5 p.m because we let we allow somebody to set their own hours once the kids get out of school that doesn't help them so that's my only ask is that we consider that moving forward but i love this idea and we'll happily support it thank you thank you very good points council member Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I completely concur with Council Member Kern. One of the things a couple years ago when COVID first hit, we had several organizations who came to us and said we want to engage the youth, but we have no place to go. And we weren't able to provide them that venue. I mean, basketball was one of those things that really engages certain demographics who want that, need accountability, and have a place to be there. So if this allows us to better bring in outside partners to do so, I'm for it. And I think this summer especially, we need it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further comments? If not, we'll have a voting screen, please. That reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next item, Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. This is an issue that came out of some of our conversations on the table, especially with some of our partners who talked specifically about our development process. I kind of look at the one-stop shop as part one. This would be part two. And this is in coordination with the chief development officer to initiate a review of development approval processes, including how the process length compares to comparable cities and counties, so we can better improve how we do infill and redevelopment in the city and make it more easier to navigate. So moved. A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Could you, does this relate to the one-stop shop or how does that, is there some coordination there or not? It's almost like a phase two. A phase one issue was bringing software up for developers and people who are interested in doing work in Lexington. more broadly to see. This is kind of like a step two is improving the process by which we use some of those things and director or Mr. Atkins is here if you'd like to ask any specific questions. Yeah I guess if you would just kind of go a little further in what's going to happen. That would be helpful thank you. Should I introduce myself? Just could you explain what is going to happen as she said the second phase, what do you foresee this doing? Because I know this is one of the issues I do hear a lot about is that we don't have the most friendly and easy process sometimes. I think it's always good to take a look at how your processes are working and how they're serving the customer base that those groups are serving. I think in this you take a look at, you have to remember, and I know the Vice Mayor's been on the Planning Commission, there are processes within the Division of Planning that are set by state statute. There's nothing that we can address in those short of a change at the General Assembly. But the broader issue is how is our process working and interacting with the people who use it on a daily basis almost? How do we compare to other communities, other like communities? For example, what you hear from a lot of developers is time is the money they can't get back. How long does it take to navigate through that process from the time you file until you have some kind of final resolution to your application? Are there steps that we could take to make infill development more friendly? there be a process that deals more with infill as opposed to just a traditional greenfield development. So basically looking at just how we do the whole thing from start to finish and how it interacts with the general public. Would we do an RFP then and put that out and have somebody go over the whole thing and try to come up with that? I think you would want somebody to do it independently. So yes, you would do it by RFP and then get it back and let them take a lens. And, you know, to remain competitive from an economic development standpoint, our process for this has got to be at least as good as our competitor cities. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Maloney. Kevin, and I'm glad I support this because it's something that's been a major issue, not just recently, for years. And some examples like I had a developer who had gone through other cities, and the books are like this. And when you come here, they're like this. And to me, we need to compare with other cities. We need to be consistent with the state and make sure we're similar to what other cities. For one example, I had a developer who wanted to build a gas station out here on Citation Boulevard. and it's right there in the middle of the industrial place and there is no restaurant in there and he wanted to put in a food restaurant like they wouldn't allow that and to me, when you're sitting there and you see all these businesses that don't have anywhere to go eat that we could have had something like that I just think this kind of stuff is going to help developers and compare what other cities are doing And the biggest issue out here is that we're not friendly in anything, especially when it comes to this kind of development. So hopefully this will help out, clear up a lot of this stuff. So I support this. And your point's a good one. You want to have a reputation of being business and customer friendly. Right. You don't want the reputation to be the opposite direction. Thank you, Council. Amanda, I'm blessed to appreciate that because this has been needed for a long time. Thank you. Thank you. Any other council members? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That vote reflects passage. Thank you. Next, traffic engineering, council member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Chris, if you could pull up my map here. Thank you. I have a little bit of a unique situation on Beth Lane here, which you see in the middle of your screen. It is a neighborhood street that runs between Clays Mill Road and Cornwall Drive that is in front of Stonewall Elementary. So the big campus you see on Clay's Mill Road is Jesse Clark Middle School and then Stonewall there to the left. So this road, obviously, this is an older neighborhood, does not have any sidewalk amenities. And then so after some pretty intense neighborhood engagement, we have come to the conclusion that a sidewalk plan at this point is not what everybody wants. Plus, it's very expensive. So just for reference, the sidewalk project was going to be just under $2 million. So obviously that's not what we're asking for right now. So what I'm asking for is to install pretty significant traffic calming measures on Beth Lane to potentially, hopefully slow the traffic to make it more pedestrian safe because we have a lot of student traffic that walks to both schools in the dark with no sidewalk. So five speed tables and edge line paint for the length of the road. And so my ask is a total of $30,000. $25,000 for the speed tables and five for the paint. And that I am proposing to come out of budget stabilization. So moved. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Next, Councilmember Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This request is for funding that would be used to completing the Mary Todd Park. Mary Todd Park is actually a new additional new park to the 12th district. It was formerly in district six and I know that council member Cloiber's office did a survey. Because this park really is in need of improvements. It's located off the Joyland area. And so what we wanted to do is to finish it, completing it. And right now, there are other ARPA monies that are being used for the basketball courts and other improvements. So we can do all of this at the same time. So my motion would be to take this $150,000. We were able to work with Sean, Denny, to find out that there was a little bit of ARPA money, so that's where the funding would come from. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Can you explain a little more about this park? I actually haven't been there. Is it one of the neighborhood parks? Is it considered classified as a neighborhood park? Yes, Council Member Reynolds, you said, what was the first part of your question? I said I haven't been there. Can you describe it more? Is it classified as a neighborhood park? Dr. Conrad, I'm going to let you come down and answer that. I've only been working with it a few months and we did just have a meeting and Monica was there. I was curious what the amenities are currently. Is there a playground and is it classified as a neighborhood park? There is a playground. It is classified as a neighborhood park. The playground is actually being replaced with ARPA funding. that's already funded um as is a relocation of the basketball court so we work with joyland neighborhood association who's very involved and councilmember kloiber's office did a great community engagement with the neighborhood so then what this is a lot of money and i know for the neighborhood parks we don't usually kind of pour this kind of money into them so what what would this money do specifically so the community engagement um identified trails as their number one request it also requested a dog park um non-paved trails was also included as was um the play equipment near a shelter so our team is actually on site again today with the neighborhood association looking at all the different sites to see what those improvements could be okay i guess it i've been doing as you know several um upgrades to parks in my district and that just seems like a lot of money so i was just curious specifically what it what it would go to so sounds like you're still trying to figure that out okay thank you thank you council member ellenger uh thank you chair how much money do we have left in the um arpa sean dennick could you answer that i have the world's biggest spreadsheet if you want me to i figured you'd have a I was trying to make it look impressive, but it's just on big paper. We have about $1.6 million left that's been unassigned in ARPA projects to date. As you all have seen, we've done a few budget amendments, moving things out of contingency into some projects that are coming over bid, and all of those have come through council, but it's right around 1.6. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Plowman, for bringing this forward. I know I share some of this area as well. This is a pretty, it might be classified as a neighborhood park, but it's a pretty good-sized park, and I think it serves a large community. There's an apartment complex nearby. There's some affordable housing units as well as single-family houses and duplexes, and then the park also crosses over the street, and I think there's opportunity, and I've heard from neighbors, to activate the other side of the street, so I think this is a great opportunity to put a lot of money in a park that will impact a lot of people, and I would support it. So thank you, Councilmember. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you. Commissioner, I mean, Director Conway, how much money are we putting in there now, opera money going into that park now? Councilmember, I am not 100%. I believe it's 300. Jennifer's got the list on her. I know we have one in phase one and one in phase two. Okay, so in the phase one basketball court moving that it's 118,000 council member Maloney and in phase two that was approved with part of the general parks and recreation In February, it looks like it is, yes, it's 250,000. So that totals $368,000 in ARPA allocations. I don't have, I mean, I understand the needs of this, but since they don't have a specific plan yet, and the ARPA money's still there, I'm not, should we vote on it now, or just wait until you see what the real plans are? because usually when we vote on these things, we have an idea what's going there. It's already specific. We have an idea what it's going to cost. I'm just kind of throwing money out there and without a plan yet. I know you're working on a plan. So I'm hesitant to vote on something like that right now. I don't mind if you all come back in a couple, what, a plan another month or whatever. We still have the offer money. And then you can, but then you're talking a half a million dollars. Are there other parks in the district that have been close to half a million dollars that we're paying to redo to parks like this one? I want to be consistent to make sure we're not favoring one over the other, that we are being fair to everybody. Do you see, can you have a report? I'm out. They may already vote on it today, but I'd like to see a report that those areas are getting the same amount. And maybe there is a reason why we have to spend more on this one than something, but at least it's compromised. You all had a plan to do the hunger for the basketball, you had a plan for the other one. You've done that. This is something they have not put a plan together yet. I have a concern about spending money until I see a plan. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Clover. Yes, Vice Mayor. I want to thank Councilmember Plumman for bringing this up. we did spend a lot of time in outreach and planning in this community in order to come up with what was going to be the best and most effective use of funds to activate it for the most people in this neighborhood it also abuts right up to a school to add to some of the other amenities that councilmember James Brown brought up as far as a plan goes they have outlined exactly which amenities are most needed for them including a pavilion near a playground so they've already started working towards the playground I believe the confusion came in and picking out that final spot for a pavilion because there are about three or four locations if you want to look at the map where they could place the playground next to a new pavilion so just to be clear there is a plan there has been a lot of neighborhood engagement we've been working very hard on this and I would ask for all of your support in making this park which used to be in my district and is now in the 12th better for all of the residents nearby. Thank you. Thank you. There are no other council members sign up to speak. We'll take a vote please. That vote reflects passage of the motion and I believe that comes to the end of that list. Can we get a tally of where we are at the moment? So I have a current fund balance of $1,047,775. I'm sorry. Say it again, sure. I have a fund balance of $1,047,775. And then in budget stabilization, $546,514. Sorry, just as a reminder, we have to keep at least $500,000 in our fund balance for the mayor's proposed budget to move forward. So, just. Okay. So, I guess I'm, I then have a question about the fund balance and how we've gotten to that number. given the numbers we've been seeing in the last few months, it looked like there was going to be a much larger fund balance going forward. Can we get a little bit of information about that? Just for clarification purposes, Vice Mayor, this is the fund balance that is proposed in the budget, but not the fund balance projection for October or November timeframe. So we proposed a beginning fund balance of $500,000. That was $150,000 last year. The council requested that we bring that up a little bit. And then we proposed adding some additional fund balance through the course of the year, just over a million dollars by the end of it. So we have added some late items to that. There's been some items today that have come off of that, and roughly a million dollars in fund balances left. but we are needing to retain about $500,000 of that so that if anything happens between now and October that needs some funding, that we're able to do that. And so the projection for the mayor's fund balance for basically June 30 is very small, given the proposal in the mayor's budget. Is that correct? So there are actually two different things. We have proposed, as far as balancing the budget, the use of a little bit of fund balance in order to be able to make adjustments through the course of the year until we get the actual fund balance. Once we close, make all the adjustments, do everything we need to do to the end of the year, we'll have a real fund balance number. But we're proposing a small portion of that be able to be used from now until then to get us through any adjustments that need to be made. Okay. So I guess where I'm going with these questions is about the projected fund balance for the fall at this point. Because you're essentially assuming there's going to be at least that much in there. Correct. The question is, how much are you projecting at this point is likely to be in there? And I ask that question because if we're over budget on what we've been talking about today, the question would be, could we not use some of that projected fund balance for the fall in this budget year? Additional fund balance projection. We tend to be very conservative in the amount that we're proposing as far as the balance goes. because ideally when you put forward a new budget, you've accounted for everything that's going to happen in the first three months. There may be some small items that come, and that's the reason for the flexibility, but that also takes away from any future use of that fund balance in the conversation. I would highly recommend that we not anticipate using a fund balance that's not there yet until October and November when we actually know what the balance is going to be. Okay, thank you. Yeah, Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One of the issues that we have dealt with here a few times, and I was on the prevailing side, so item number one, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider. So moved. Motion to reconsider item one. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Councilmember Kloiber. This was the first item that we voted on, and it was a very close item. I would like for us to consider giving it the same treatment. We did several other items down the list, which is to push it to the conversation about fund balance later so that it is still a live item since it is a good project. So I would like to make an amendment to the reconsidered motion that we consider this in the fund balance discussion in the fall. Councilman Employer, procedurally, I think first there would need to be a vote on the reconsideration. And then if there's a motion to amend the reconsideration or a motion, whatever. If we move to reconsider, what we're back to is the original motion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. I can't support this motion. I gave you a pilot program. I can't see spending $3.7 million for something that we have never seen been done before. And we have a pilot program right now sitting up on the sixth floor that we can set $150,000 aside and try to do three houses. And if it works, then we come back and we have the budget. and hopefully the economy is good as everybody claims it's going to be, then we do it. But I am not going to take a risk to spending $3.6 million or whatever it is. So I'm against your motion, I think. But to me, when you already got a program up there that can do this and see if it works, and you have nothing here that shows me that this works. I mean, I've talked to other cities that have done it that it's not working, but they say we can try it here and do a pilot program. So I'm not going to spend $3.6 million on something and nobody's yet to show me how it works. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion, which is to reconsider? Council Member Maloney, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair, I would like to speak to the motion to reconsider. Sure. I didn't make the case. again this morning for the need for this project and for the timeliness of it. It's one of the few projects that actually benefits a specific set of people in our community who have been disinvested in for a long time. I went back and forth on whether I wanted to raise the reconsideration at this point. It's late, people are tired. But I would like the opportunity to have a fuller conversation about it, and so I hope people will support reconsideration, and then we can have discussions of the underlying motion and amendments if needed or judge worthy. Thank you. You're going to have it back. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. If you will, it's a reconsideration, please vote electronically. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Now we're on the underlying motion. There are people who wish to speak to the motion. Council Member McCloyborough. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'd like to restate my previous comment in stating that this was the first vote that we had. Later on, we moved several items to consideration in fund balance. And since we don't know what that fund balance will be, I would like for this motion to get the same treatment as it is a good program. So I'd like to make a motion that we move this item into that conversation for fund balance in the fall, so moved. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Discussion on the motion to amend. I see nobody else signed up to speak. I'm going to have to yield the chair again. I'm sorry. Councilmember Maloney, I need you to take the chair again. I'd like to speak to the motion to amend. Sure. Go ahead, Mayor. Thank you. So this proposed project involves construction. It would be better to move it forward now rather than waiting six months, five, six months. I understand the interest, but I believe that it needs to be moved forward now. It's been postponed and postponed. And so I appreciate the sentiment of the amendment. I would like to take an up and down vote right now. So thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? The amendment is to move this to the fund balance discussion in the fall. You do one more vote. Thank you. That reflects failure of the amendment. We're back to the original motion. Further discussion on the underlying motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That vote reflects failure of the motion on a tie vote. Thank you. I have actually a couple, but I'll start with just one. A motion to reconsider item number nine, which is the, no, I'm sorry, item number eight of the Arboretum. And my intent to reconsider is to move it to a fund balance conversation. Second. I have a motion and a second to move that item to a fund balance conversation. Nine? I'm sorry, eight. It's the arboretum funding, the original $300,000. Discussion on the motion? I'm sorry, Council Member McCurran, are you on for that? Council Member McCloiber, are you on for that item? I thought we had already moved it to fund balance discussion. How do we not? My understanding is that $300,000 is in the mayor's proposed budget. I mean. $200,000 is in the budget. The $300,000 failed to get approved. So I'm officially moving it. Okay. Thank you. It failed to get, okay. It failed to get approved. The additional three got failed. Now it's being moved to the, proposed to be moved to the fund balance. Is there anybody wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, take a vote. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. Councilmember McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. If you'll bear with me on this one, it's kind of confusing, but I guess I'd like to reconsider Councilmember Ellinger's $90,000 for item number six or whatever was proposed earlier on. So move. Item number six was Councilmember Legree's item for the pavilion downtown I'd like more information on what councilmember Ellinger was pulling or bringing forward based on his packet here were you on the prevailing side I was it's a motion to reconsider the amended number what is it Might I make a suggestion to the councilmember vice mayor is that this just be a standalone motion to add $90,000 to Tandy Park Fifth Third lighting improvements so as not to open up an issue that we've already allocated that comes from a different funding source I think that that makes it too difficult That would be my suggestion to the council member, but he can proceed how he likes. Council member McCurran, you want to withdraw your original motion and remake a motion? Absolutely, yes, sir. Would you like me to restate the same way, or is that okay with how council member really just said? This would be a new motion, I gather. The suggestion is this is a new motion. Then I would like to make a motion for the $90,000 to come from budget stabilization for the pavilion lighting. Addition, so move. Motion, is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, take a vote. I'm sorry, Council Member will agree. Thank you, thank you Council Member McCurran for your desire to have additional initiatives and improvements at Tandy Park and for bringing this back up. I want to clearly separate this from lighting. This is not a lighting project. The lighting project is settled. And what I would like to do for the sake of clarity, if you wouldn't mind, Council Member Ellinger, could you list out what this project will be for so that our colleagues know what the $90,000, the standalone $90,000 would go toward, please? Certainly. Yeah. you all received a packet from the 5th 3rd pavilion henry tandy centennial park facility assessment so that would be what i handed out here and on the back page would be the the the cost taking out the lighting which was 150 000 then it would include as you see going down through here the general repairs the power washing the the panels the site the landscaping the roofing and the um the speaker system so all that would be part of the 90,000 to get it ready to not only just for the Breer's Cup but it's used it's probably one of the most used parks that we have right now for Thursday Night Live we as I said we have a contract right now with Fifth Third through 2025 and and to show them that that we're good stewards and we want to continue to make sure that we have them going forward because we're going to be renegotiating that contract here in the their future but obviously with the Breeders' Cup coming up we want to put our best face forward and this will help us do that because this will be as I spoke with the person who in charge of the Breeders' Cup Festival I spoke with today that this is going to be the main focus for the Breeders' Cup in having a lot of the activities down there so we want to make sure we're prepared because we're going to have the world at our doorstep so that was what this $90,000 go for. Thank you. Thank you. And one more clarifying question. Where would the $90,000 go? Would it go toward parks? Where would those funds be allocated to? My guess would be with parks and Monica you can come up and talk about it. Thank you. But they would be doing the help to getting it beautified and put altogether. Yes, council member, we would recommend that it come to parks and then we'll be contracting out some of that work as well, of course. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Maloney. Monica, could you come back up or the administration? Did you all set aside money for the Breeders' Cup for this year? And my question is why was this not included? And how come we get to see it the last hour or the last minute? Or have you all seen this plan? And if you're not wanting to fund it, can you tell me why? So I at least know, because I'd like to see why we have that. You all have not seen it yet, if you have. I'm going to answer the first question. We have $50,000 in this budget for Breeders' Cup to spruce up various things. The second question I think you ask, have we seen this? I had not and I think Monica, have you seen it? When did you see it? I saw it a month ago. She saw it a month ago. I never saw it. This is what concerns me. Usually when we come this far, the administration has said no. And then we try to sell it while we override the administration. But when you see the administration has yet to see it, or maybe why we haven't pushed it on. I'm trying to figure out, is this the right message we send in here? I mean, I like to give a chance to the administration, explain to me why they didn't do it. And I can hear two sides. So I'm not ready to vote for something that we have not got, that the folks in the ministry, and we own that property, if am I correct, even though Fifth Third has got the name title. But to me, we should have a better relationship. And if it's just coming from the downtown authority or whatever, I don't know who's on that board, but it seems like to me whoever's on the board from the mayor's office should be communicating with the mayor's administration these kind of things so they can have a heads up instead of us sitting in this horseshoe doing the work that they're supposed to be doing. I have concerns about voting for anything like that until I see the administration on board with it too. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I share some of the same sentiment that Council Member Maloney is bringing up. I support the funding, the effort, and everything that we can do to make Breeders' Cup a great experience for everybody that's experiencing it. But the fact that this item came up late to the list, it wasn't a council member request, and the administration was unfamiliar with it, I think it raises concerns, but I'm going to support it because I don't want it to be one of those things where we let process get in the way of progress. But I do think it should have been a little more vetted, and I am concerned with making sure that this money goes through parks and that these amenities that we're talking about is something that we are going to maintain and keep up going forward and not something that we get stuck with. So I will support it, but I do have concerns. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. We'll take a vote on the question. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Anybody else with any other business? Okay, I see nobody else. Council Member Bledsoe. I'm sorry, we've got other people. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I signed up to speak in the committee referral section. Is that where we're at? Okay, we can take those now or we can do them in a work session. Well, these were link related, which is why I brought it up now. Then let's make the referrals. All right, I'll try to be quick about this. We currently have a juvenile probation services section of our budget, which is about $680,000 on an annual basis. The state is required to fund and provide that service for us, and every other municipality in the state has already handed over those operations to them. So I would like to place into the general government committee a review of that handoff process and possibility for us, with the juvenile probation program here in Lexington, so moved. Thank you. Second. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Maloney, are you on this motion? Anybody wish to speak to this motion? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I know this item come to council a couple of years ago, either the same item or something similar. And what I heard from our own folks in that department was that this is something that we do at a local level better than they do at the state level. No criticism to them, but I think our folks are passionate and more intentional about how they handle this. But I'm fine with having the discussion. My next point is, is it in the right committee? Because I think this falls under public safety if it's probation, but I could be wrong. But those are my concerns with that. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, since the referrals, all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. I have one more item. I would like to place again into the General Government Committee a review of all of our social programs for potential duplication with nonprofits in the community to see if there are partnerships that we can enhance. So I'd like to review that to see what we're duplicating and what we might be able to get out of partnerships with nonprofits. So moved. The motion, is there a second? Second. Have a motion and a second. Council members wish to speak to the motion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. This is the time we talk about trying to move money around and make projects work well. The solar panel is important to me and to me we have a chance to do a pilot program. So I'd like to make a motion that we set $150,000 aside and let the CDBG folks start looking and doing these solar panel houses, which we could do three or four a year and if it does well we keep that money coming in every year like we do on other, so so move. I have a motion. Is there a second? Second. I have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Councilmember Melody. I'm sorry, I'm just a tad bit confused. Where are you taking the money to do this from, and is this a program you'd like us to consider funding, or is there something that they would bring forward to us so we can look at? We have a lot of money in CDBG where we can't finish a lot of these houses. And it's going to be federal money, it's going to be CDBG money. And I asked them if they could set some aside. I have mentioned it before to the administration and some of them said it's a good idea. So I thought this might be the right time since I don't want to see this thing fail. And if there's an opportunity to keep the momentum going, this is the time that I would want to do this. To set aside $150,000 to do three or four homes. If it worked, we can do it every year. Yes, the source of funding is this budget stabilization. It comes from CDBG, federal funding for low-income families that we do for a project in the north end of town. We do all kinds of be eligible for people who are under a certain income will be eligible for this program. It's like they're doing the rehab houses, they'll be eligible for this, can we set money aside for this, for the energy efficiency on the solar panels. So it will not be any federal, I mean it'd be federal money. Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kloiber? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess, again, I have a lot of questions about how this pilot program is going to work. Is there any way we could get this put into committee and maybe get a presentation real quick before we Decide to assign any kind of dollars to it. I just is that something you'd be amenable to as a I have no problem I know the vice mayor had the plan that he was going to use Some amount for each house. I want to use the same amount but for not as many houses I was going to use the vice mayor's proposal and That you all seen the presentation that the vice mayor had brought to you all the only difference is the money is coming not from the budget stabilization is coming from federal funded and I don't want to see this delayed because we've heard a lot of good things are going to happen with this money up these families this is the way we can start right now with a pilot program. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I just want to see what Commissioner Lanard may have to say about this program. I'm supportive of it. I think maybe putting it in committee will be beneficial to talk about it, but I would think CDGB money is already allocated. Yeah, Councilman Mullaney is absolutely right in terms of this is an allowable project for CDBG. It's a good fit for CDBG. It would just be important for Council to know that you just recently approved our consolidated plan and we submitted it to HUD already for the FY23 year. So all of the FY23 funds are allocated already for CDBG. They're already committed to other projects. So if you wanted to do something new with those funds, you would have to either wait until fiscal year 24, or we would have to have a project fall through or not spend all of its money in order to have funds available before July 1st of 24. And really, because HUD runs slow, and we tend not to get that money until after the fiscal year has started, it would probably be fall of 24 before you had access to those funds. All right. Thank you for that. Oh, that's all I have. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Maloney and Council Member K for this. It's not that I'm not supportive or think that it's a bad idea. It's that I think that the return is very expensive for this type of program, and I just think that there's other types of programs that might benefit those in need a little bit more. That being said, Commissioner Lanter, can I ask you a question? So this would take away money from sidewalk projects that we might have in our districts and areas of need, and would use up most of the funds in the future? It would just depend on how much you allocated to the project. We receive about $2 million a year in CDBG. About a million of that annually goes towards the Metals Northland Arlington project, which has been an ongoing thing for many, many years. So really what we generally have is $1 to $1.2 million a year to work with. That number has been going either steady or down most years. it doesn't go up very rarely does it go up so that that's pretty close to what it will be so you know you could do a hundred thousand you can do two hundred thousand three thousand but yeah however high you went that we would have that much less to work with for other projects so if we did a hundred and fifty K that would be about six houses but a small portion of the money that we have available I'm not familiar with what the estimated cost per house was on this project but I think that I think it was you said 20 or 25,000 it was 25 but that was based on scale because you get about a 15 or 20 percent discount depending on the scale of the project so it would be more more per unit so we're talking about helping make less than six households at 150 K a year sounds like it yeah potentially what what i would recommend if we did this is to pair it with the rehab program and i think that may be what council member maloney is thinking of that way you can cover any other necessary repairs that would go would be needed or associated with any work that gets done on the house so for example let's say it needed a new roof prior to installation of solar panels the rehab program could do the roof replacement and then that doesn't come off your total for doing any installation of solar or any other measures so it actually probably allow you you to serve more if you paired it with the rehab program. Okay, that sounds like a good idea. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Seeing none, we'll take a vote. That vote reflects failure of the motion. I think if we can go back to committee referrals, were there other committee referrals pending? Councilman McCurran. Thank you, Vice Mayor. My apologies about this. I thought this was in the adoption of our link packet here. I do have three. I'll make these real quick for the link recommendations. I move to put an item into general government, a discussion on how to communicate well to different or slash broad groups of people. So move. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? that motion carries thank you two more uh i move to place into the an item into uh finance and budget and finance uh committee use of adoption funds and how they can roll forward so move motion and a second any discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor please say aye any opposed that motion carries last but not least i I move to put an item into general government to review an outdated civil defense ordinance. So move. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. That is it, thank you sir. Thank you, any other referrals? Okay, then I guess one more time can we get a last set of numbers and And I'll recognize Council Member Bledsoe. So the budget stabilization remaining funds at $456,514. And then the ending balance for the fund balance for next year is $1,047,775. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. One more clarification because I was asked. The money that we just did, the $90,000, that goes to parks, not DLP. And if anybody appears to have an issue with that, speak now. Okay, thank you. Okay, I have two motions on behalf of all the work that we've just done, and thank you all for your hard work as council members and as administration to pull together a budget. So first, I hereby make a motion to place the budget amendments related to the pre-funding certain items in the fiscal year 2023 budget as previously proposed by the administration and tabled by the council, as amended by the council and its Committee of the Whole meetings regarding the budget, on the docket for the first reading of the Urban County Council meeting at 6 p.m. on June 9, 2022, with the second reading scheduled for the council meeting on June 14, 2022. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I think we'll take an electronic vote, record it that way. I'm sorry, we don't have a, yeah. Need one more vote? Fred's not in the room. He's not here. Fred's not here. Two absent. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. And lastly, I hereby make a motion to ratify the mayor's proposed budget for the fiscal year 2023 as amended by the council and its committee of the whole meetings regarding the budget. A summary of those amendments is attached. I further move to place the fiscal year 2023 budget on the docket for first reading at the Urban County Council meeting at 6 p.m. on June 9, 2022, with a second reading schedule for the council meeting on June 14, 2022. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, please take an electronic vote. That vote reflects the passage of the motion. Before I accept the motion for adjourn, I'd like to add, before I accept the motion, I would just like to add my thanks to the administration, council, and all of the citizens who followed this and gave us their input. But I hope what they see is a reflection of what is really in the best interest of the community. And now, is there a motion to adjourn? Sir, I have a motion and a second without objection. We stand adjourned.