# Council Work Session - September 6, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 6, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5638 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5638?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-09-06 - **Last revised**: September 6, 2022 - **Length**: 6,130 words - **Speakers**: Mayor > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on September 6, 2022, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber on the 2nd Floor of the Government Center, with Mayor Gorton presiding. The council addressed seven agenda items during the session, with most items receiving approval including budget amendments, new business items, neighborhood development funds, and the mayor's report. The council conducted nine motions and votes throughout the meeting, demonstrating active deliberation on the matters before them. One member of the public provided comment on agenda issues during the designated public comment period. The meeting included both action items that required council approval and informational presentations, including a General Government and Social Services Report that provided updates to council members without requiring a vote. ## Attendance The following members were present at the September 6, 2022 meeting: **Present:** • Kay • Moloney • Ellinger • J. Brown • McCurn • LeGris • Sheehan • Kloiber • Worley • F. Brown • Baxter • Bledsoe • Reynolds • Plomin **Absent:** • Lamb No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 14 members were present and 1 member was absent. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted nine votes during the September 6, 2022 meeting, with eight motions passing and one failing. All votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call. **Passed Motions:** • **Dining Out for Life Recognition** [timestamp: 00:30] - Lamb motioned to approve the September 8 council meeting docket presentation recognizing Kentucky's Dining Out for Life program. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Neighborhood Development Fund Amendment** [timestamp: 01:00] - Reynolds motioned to amend the NDF list for a neighborhood development fund allocation of $800 for Liberty Performing Arts, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Work Session Summary** [timestamp: 02:00] - McCurn motioned to approve the August 30 work session summary, seconded by Plomin. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Budget Amendments** [timestamp: 03:00] - Kay motioned to approve budget amendments, seconded by Baxter. The motion passed by voice vote. • **New Business** [timestamp: 04:00] - Kay motioned to approve new business, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote, with Moloney casting the sole dissenting vote on items F and H. • **Neighborhood Development Funds** [timestamp: 05:00] - McCurn motioned to approve neighborhood development funds, seconded by Kay. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Police Memorandums of Understanding** [timestamp: 07:00] - Kay motioned to instruct the administration to work on a series of memorandums of understanding with the police force, seconded by Ellinger. The motion passed by voice vote. • **Mayor's Report** [timestamp: 08:00] - Plomin motioned to approve the Mayor's Report, seconded by Sheehan. The motion passed by voice vote. **Failed Motion:** • **Collective Bargaining** [timestamp: 06:00] - Moloney motioned to open up collective bargaining, seconded by Ellinger. The motion failed by voice vote. ## Budget and Financial Actions The council approved several contracts and purchases totaling over $360,000 during the September 6, 2022 meeting. **Contracts and Agreements:** • **Resolution 0840-22**: Approved a contract with GRW for topographic survey services in the amount of $28,870.00 • **Resolution 0854-22**: Authorized an agreement with Cerner Corporation for medication history inquiry services totaling $16,800.00 • **Resolution 0890-22**: Approved a lease agreement with AVOL Kentucky, Inc. for $10.00 per year • **Resolution 0893-22**: Approved Change Order No. 5 with ATS Construction for Town Branch Trail Phase 6 in the amount of $240,937.98 **Equipment and Supply Purchases:** • **Resolution 0889-22**: Authorized the purchase of Boerger replacement parts for sludge pumps from Henry P. Thompson Company for $22,759.34 • **Resolution 0899-22**: Approved the purchase of a refurbished Ferno iNX Stretcher for $41,460.00 The largest expenditure was the change order for the Town Branch Trail Phase 6 project with ATS Construction at nearly $241,000. The council also approved infrastructure-related purchases including sludge pump replacement parts and emergency medical equipment. The nominal $10 annual lease with AVOL Kentucky, Inc. represents ongoing operational agreements at minimal cost to the city. ## Public Comment During the public comment period, one community member addressed the board regarding American Rescue Project funding discrepancies. **Dottie Bean** spoke about concerns regarding American Rescue Project funding allocations [timestamp: 09:00]. Bean questioned a significant discrepancy she identified between reported figures and actual figures for capital grant awards distributed to non-profit organizations. According to Bean, there was a $2 million difference between what was reported and the actual amounts awarded, raising questions about the accuracy of the funding documentation and distribution process. The comment highlighted potential issues with the transparency and accounting of federal relief funds being administered at the local level. Bean's inquiry focused specifically on grants provided to non-profit organizations through the American Rescue Plan Act funding program. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that resulted in a split vote among council members. **Collective Bargaining Proposal** Council Member Moloney proposed opening up collective bargaining negotiations, which generated substantial debate and division among the council. The proposal faced immediate pushback from other council members who raised concerns about the potential legal ramifications and associated costs of entering into collective bargaining agreements. The disagreement centered on whether the municipality should proceed with full collective bargaining or pursue alternative approaches to labor negotiations. Those opposing the original proposal cited worries about the financial burden and legal complexities that could arise from formal collective bargaining processes. Rather than proceeding with Moloney's initial proposal, the council ultimately passed an amendment that offered a compromise solution. The amended motion directed staff to pursue Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) instead of full collective bargaining agreements. This alternative approach was seen as a middle ground that could address labor relations concerns while avoiding some of the legal and financial risks associated with traditional collective bargaining. The split vote on this issue highlighted differing philosophies among council members regarding labor relations and municipal governance approaches. The final outcome represented a compromise position that allowed the council to move forward on labor-related matters while addressing the concerns raised by those who opposed the original collective bargaining proposal. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:00] The council opened the public comment period for issues listed on the meeting agenda. This portion of the meeting provides an opportunity for community members to address the council regarding specific items scheduled for discussion or action during the session. No members of the public came forward to speak during this comment period. The council proceeded with the meeting agenda following the conclusion of the public comment opportunity. This agenda item serves as a standard procedural element that allows for public participation in the governmental process by giving citizens a designated time to voice their concerns, opinions, or support regarding matters the council will be addressing during the meeting. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 02:00] The council considered approval of the summary from the August 30 work session. The agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring council action. Key speakers during this discussion included McCurn and Plomin, who addressed the council regarding the summary document. The council proceeded to approve the summary of the August 30 work session without recorded opposition or significant debate. The resolution was adopted, formally accepting the summary as presented. **Outcome:** Approved ## Budget Amendments [timestamp: 03:00] The council considered various budget amendments during the September 6, 2022 meeting. Kay and Baxter served as the key speakers for this agenda item. The discussion focused on proposed modifications to the current budget, though the specific details of the amendments and the nature of the debate were not detailed in the available materials. Both Kay and Baxter participated in presenting or discussing the budget changes under consideration. Following the discussion, the council voted to approve the budget amendments. The resolution passed, allowing the proposed budget modifications to move forward. The agenda item was classified as a resolution requiring formal council action, and the approval enables the implementation of the budget changes that were presented during the meeting. ## New Business [timestamp: 04:00] The council addressed several new business items during this portion of the meeting. Kay and Ellinger were the primary speakers who participated in the discussion of these matters. The new business section included multiple items, with particular attention focused on items F and H, which generated some dissent among council members. While the specific details of what these items contained were not elaborated upon in the available materials, they proved to be the most contentious of the new business matters considered. During the voting process, the majority of the new business items received approval from the council. However, items F and H faced opposition, with one council member casting a no vote against each of these particular items. The identity of the dissenting member and the specific reasons for their opposition were not detailed in the available information. Despite the single dissenting vote on items F and H, all new business items ultimately received approval from the council. The overall outcome for the new business section was positive, with the council moving forward on the various matters presented for consideration. The discussion and voting on new business items concluded with the council having addressed multiple issues, though the brief nature of the available information does not provide insight into the specific content, scope, or implications of the individual items that were considered and approved during this segment of the meeting. ## Neighborhood Development Funds The council considered a resolution regarding neighborhood development fund allocations during this agenda item [timestamp: 05:00]. Council members McCurn and Kay served as the key speakers for this discussion. The resolution focused on distributing funds designated for neighborhood development projects across the community. The council approved the neighborhood development fund allocations as presented. No specific details about the funding amounts, recipient neighborhoods, or types of development projects were provided in the available materials. The resolution passed with council approval, allowing the allocated funds to proceed to their designated neighborhood development purposes. ## General Government and Social Services Report [timestamp: 06:00] Council Member Lamb presented a summary of the August 16, 2022 General Government and Social Services Committee meeting to the full council. The presentation served as an informational report to update council members on the committee's recent activities and decisions. Lamb provided an overview of the motions that were considered and approved during the committee meeting. This was a routine informational presentation with no action required from the full council, as the committee had already addressed the relevant matters during their August 16th session. ## Mayor's Report [timestamp: 08:00] The Mayor's Report was presented during the September 6, 2022 meeting, with key participation from Plomin and Sheehan. The council reviewed and discussed the contents of the Mayor's report, though specific details of the presentation and discussion topics were not detailed in the available materials. Both Plomin and Sheehan contributed to the proceedings during this agenda item. Following the presentation and any discussion, the council voted to approve the Mayor's Report. No specific concerns or objections were noted in the record regarding this item. The approval of the Mayor's Report allows the information and recommendations contained within it to move forward as part of the official council record. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the September 8, 2022 Council meeting docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place a presentation recognizing AVOL Dining Out for Life on the docket for the September 8, 2022 Council meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve III. Approval of Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve V. New Business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve neighborhood development funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the NDF list to add a neighborhood development fund allocation of $800.00 to Acclivity Dance & Performing Arts, LLC - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve a draft ordinance amending Section 12-1 of the Code of Ordinances related to the property maintenance code (as approved at the August 16, 2022 General Government and Social Services Committee meeting) - **Motion** — passed (0-0): open the Collective Bargaining Agreement for Police to look at ways to improve recruitment and retention - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend and instruct the administration to work on MOUs with police for this purpose and bring recommendations to council - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor's Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 3:39pm --- ## Full transcript All night Staring through the darkness Afraid to turn on the light It's got nothing to do with money I just shouldn't want you, honey And I just can't rest Till I get it right Cause when the morning breeze starts blowing That's when you hear me call your name That's when my love starts showing It's getting serious baby End of game Cause I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love You got me walking around in circles Yeah, always basing the floor Cause this life I'm living without you I just can't take no more When the morning breeze starts blowing I can hear you call my name That's when my love starts showing It's getting serious, baby Enough games Cause I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I can hear it call your name That's when my love starts showing It's been seriously in the game Cause I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love I said I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love I can't get enough of your love We'll be right back. There was a time when I was so broken hearted. Love wasn't much of a friend of mine. The tables had turned. Yeah. Called me and then was that parted. That kind of love was the killing kind. So listen. All I want is someone I can't resist I know all I need to know about the way that I got kissed I was crying when I met you Now I'm trying to forget you Love is sweet misery I was crying just to get you Now I'm dying cause I let you Do what you do down on me Now there's not even breathing room Between pleasure and pain Yeah you cry when we make it now Must be one and the same It's down on me Yeah, I've got to tell you one thing It's been on my mind That I've got to stay We're partners in crime You've got to answer it's something What you give to me Takes my breath away Now go out on the street As the demons in your kiss If I let go Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and call to order the September 6, 2022 Council work session. And the first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. And let's see, Ms. Bean, is yours for an issue not on the agenda? It's been on the agenda. You all have to ask the last week. Okay, so we'll do that in just a couple minutes then. So this is, does anyone have comments for issues on today's agenda? I don't see anyone. So next up is approval of the docket. If I could have a motion. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger and second by Council Member McCurn. Are there any questions or changes or other? Council Member Lamb. Yes, ma'am. I have been asked to walk on, on behalf of the administration, to make a motion to walk on the September 8th Council Meeting Docket, A presentation recognizing AVOL, Kentucky's Dining Out for Life program. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Council Member McCurron seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Council Member Reynolds. I move to amend the NDF list to add a neighborhood development fund allocation of $800 dollars to Acclivity Dance and Performing Arts. Second. All right. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Anything else for the docket? All right. All those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Could I have that vote again? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Oh, very good. Thank you. I didn't know if, like, two people or anybody opposed. Thank you. That motion passes. Is there a motion, please, for the summary of August 30th? Approval. Vice Mayor moves and Council Member Legree seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, budget amendments. Could I have a motion? Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan, is there a second? Second. Council Member McCurn seconds. If you have questions about budget amendments, please log in. Any questions? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. new business. Could I have a motion? Second. Thank you. Council Member Baxter moves. Council Member Reynolds seconds. And if you have questions, please log in. All right. All those in favor, say aye. Is anyone opposed? No on F and H. So we have one no on F and one no on H. All right, that motion passes. It's a quiet day today. Could I have a motion to approve neighborhood development funds? All right, thank you. Council Member McCurron moves and Vice Mayor Kay seconds. Any questions? All right. And they, let's see, any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And now I'd like to call on Council Member Lamb for General Government and Social Services Report. Yes, ma'am. It's August 16, 2022, summary and motions. The August 16th General Government Social Services Committee began to meet at 1 o'clock. The approval of the June 14th, 2022 Committee Summary. Motion by Council Member Plowman was made to approve the June 14th, 2022 Committee Summary. Seconded by Council Member Sheehan and the motion passed without dissent. The second item was the Code Enforcement Update. Director Alzoe gave a presentation on proposed changes to Code Enforcement. The objective of bringing this to Council is to modernize and implement a realistic approach to the updating of the provisions and enforcement of property maintenance issues. The proposed updates include altering LFUCG's Code of Ordinances to reflect changes in the International Property Maintenance Code, modifying the mowing and overgrowth rules, update language to reflect code enforcement's move to the new Department of Housing Advocacy and Community Development, and finally update the area median income from 125 percent to 80 percent. Code enforcement also proposed edits to the violations library to consolidate and or eliminate redundant violation types. This resulted in a net reduction of 96 violations, which could potentially impact revenue via collected fees by $12,000 to $40,000 annually. A motion by Councilmember Baxter to move forward the draft ordinance and seconded by Councilmember Fred Brown. The motion passed without dissent and on the behalf of the committee, I so move. Second. Thank you. Council Member Baxter seconds. Any questions? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And then lastly, the items referred to committee. The following item were removed from committee, the substance abuse intervention update and the update from the Division of Code Enforcement, and we adjourned at 2-23. Thank you so much. All right, thank you. Are there any questions for Council Member Lamb? Okay, thank you very much. All right, it's time for Council Reports. If you'll sign in, please. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. This Saturday on Oxford Circle in Cardinal Valley, there is going to be a work day from 8 30 to 11 30 a.m. to work on plantings there in the median and then from 12 to 2 p.m. there's going to be a neighborhood cookout in Oxford Circle so everybody is welcome to that and then I just wanted to also recognize that it is our colleague councilmember James Brown's birthday and I recall one time He told everyone it was my birthday, so I just had to get him back. And I think all of us brought him hundreds of donuts to celebrate. So anyway, I just wanted to mention that, and I hope that everyone had a good holiday weekend. Thank you. Happy birthday, Council Member James Brown. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate it. I want to bring something very personal to me. Public safety is a big issue to my life. First of all, my mother loved the fire department more than anything. We got robbed one time. She didn't call the police. She called the fire. But on the police side, my grandfather was a policeman here for the Urban County Government. My dad was a police judge, and the police had been very important in our family. And what I've seen the last two or three years, and we've had enough time here, and I know we've had the collective bargain. We've tried to cut a deal, and it seems like everything kind of went sour a little bit when we passed the collective bargain. But as I sit here and here look at Chief Weathers and those guys are sitting up there, when we're 115 short, we're 150 to retire today. If something bad happens, about 150 of them will just walk out. That's my worst fear. And I think it's time to fix these problems. And I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but in my opinion, we have to open up the collective bargain. Because in that collective bargain, there's a deal where we do the three years to keep our police officers after they went through our training that we trained them. Right now, we have no language in there that they can leave any time after they get the training. We spend a lot of time investing in that. The second one I really like is that there's some folks that want to come back here and work, that retired. And I think you have, and I know you all say you can't, but we can get it done in Frankfurt and all that. But if you read parts of the collective bargaining, it has in there that we cannot hire people back from retirement. And that has to open up again. And the other thing is because we're having a surplus, and I like to be proactive instead of reactive. and I think it's time that we try to open it up to try to work with our police officers, with the collective bargaining now, because when this surplus comes in, we should have a plan, and I think everywhere I go when people talk, we don't care what it costs to keep our police officers. We've got to get protection, and that's everywhere. And some people may say their district is safe and all that, but I've been all over the city the last two months, and every conversation, Nobody wants to come downtown. Nobody wants to. They're worried about going out in their backyard. So I'm going to make a motion today, and I probably won't get set, but I am going to make a motion at the time that we have to do something about this. So I make a motion that we hope to collect the bargain back up to look at these issues that I brought up, so move. Is there a second? I'll second it. Council Member Ellinger seconds. Is there discussion? And you'll need to raise your hand, please, since some are signed in for council comment. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Maloney, I understand where you're coming from, and I want to agree to it, but under the situation, I think we need a little bit more information because my understanding, you're just dealing with the police, would be the collective bargaining for the police? Is that okay? And my understanding from law, I believe, is that we could do some, was it MOUs? That's right. With the collective bargaining, within the collective bargaining, and not actually open that up. So I was more concerned with being able to work under that thing on MOUs. Maybe we put it in committee or what we do with it. But anyway, there's some things we could address that you talked about that I would think that we could do a memo of understanding and not have to open collective bargaining back up because I'm just not sure about the legal ramifications it's going to present. That's it. And I'd like to follow up with that. I agree with you on some of those two things that I talked about, but at the end of the day, we're 115 police officers short. We're losing them. And as I told you before, we're like the fourth highest paying police department in Lexington. The schools are higher than us, more than us, universities more than us, the airport's more than us, and we're right now for it. And the only way to fix that problem is money. And to do that, you have to open up the collective bargaining. The other two you're talking about, I agree, but at the end of the day, you're going to have to open up the collective bargain to make sure we have money, which we have a surplus. And to me, everybody out here, when they campaign, public safety is number one. And this is the old golden opportunity that we open it up. But when the surplus comes in, the administration and the collective bargain people have got a plan on how we can solve something. At least we're trying. and if it and if it if it doesn't work it doesn't work but i think this is the time to do it because we'll be instead of waiting till the surplus comes in we might spend that money on something else i'm not in i'm ready to prove the public safety is number one and that's the reason i'm making that motion now does anyone else wish to speak councilmember lamb thank you mayor and um i guess The lens that I have to look at this through as I try to look at so many other things through is setting precedent. And I would think, I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that once you set precedent to open up a collective bargaining agreement for discussion in the middle of or at the beginning or the end, but before it is done, completed, that you're setting precedent to do that for any other bargaining unit, in which we have several. And for that very reason, it concerns me. I do think that what, Council Member Fred Brown, I think there might be some opportunities to vet some of these items through different channels, and I'm hoping that we can do that. But I think that we need to be careful and look at this from a broader perspective about opening up and setting precedent. Also, we have to remember, too, that any time we have collective bargaining, we also have attorney fees because we have to have outside counsel that has to participate in this. And so, you know, that is another thought that we would have to take into consideration because those are funds that I'm sure that the Department of Law puts in place at the time they expect for these bargaining tables to be convened at the end of each of those contracts. And I'd say that at this point that is not expected, and so I'm not sure where that would be, where that money would come from. So those are my two thoughts. Thanks. Thank you. Any other comments on the motion? Council Member Kloiber? Thank you, Mayor. I think that we all care very deeply about these issues in our public safety. I guess I have two kind of questions. The first one is just a point of timing. When are the current collective bargaining things coming up for renegotiation? They're on different schedules. Okay. And law could tell you the exact. There's one that's two years, a two-year contract. The others are mostly four. And we're also, just for context to your question, getting ready to the fire majors have just requested that we begin our bargaining with them. So we're about to start that one. That'll be our last one. They're powwowing in the back. I understand. I guess the second one, I can direct this question to Council Member Maloney real quick. Is this a motion of the council to open up these or instructing the administration? Just for clarification on that. is to instruct the administration to start opening up the collective part. Okay. Welcome, Commissioner. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you. My apologies, Council Member. The current contract is effective through the end of June of 2025. So it's a three-year contract that just began. But as has been discussed from Council Member Fred Brown, we can reach agreements in order to try and address some of these issues in the interim through an MOU? That is correct. There's a question that I need to look into with respect to salaries, base salary, but generally items, you know, we have done that. We've entered into MOUs without opening the entire contract up for very discrete, specific issues. Okay. Well, I think that all of us want to address this issue, and we want to do it without incurring a lot of fees and a lot of costs. And if there's a way that we can do this through MOUs, I think that we'd all prefer that because we can go much quicker in that kind of a respect. How long do you think it will be before we have an answer about every piece, like salaries and et cetera, if that can be adjusted through MOUs? We can look at that question immediately. Okay. I would prefer to vote against this today until we have all of that information, just to make sure that we can get something in place as quickly as possible. because I think the last time we were involved in collective bargaining, it did take a couple of years for us to get a resolution. And before we incur extra costs in doing that, I know that we've made a couple of MOUs, including the one just recently. Whatever we can get the fastest that's going to get us results is what I'm going to support. So thank you. Thank you. Any other comments to the motion? Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Mayor. Just to follow up, it seems to me that while I understand the intent, and I believe that everybody on council and certainly in the community understands how important it is that we support our police force and that we have a series of issues facing us which are not optimal, but my concern is that opening up the contract is not a short-term answer. those negotiations can take a long time and as has been pointed out that's been the case in the past so i'm going to make a motion to amend the motion that's on the table to instruct the administration to work on a set of memorandums of understanding with the police force and to bring back some recommendations to Council. So move. Council member Ellinger seconds. Is there any discussion? I'll ask the Vice Mayor to take the chair please. Thank you and I'll recognize the mayor. Thank you. I have a question about your amendment. Is this about financial MOUs? This is about any memorandums of understanding which will essentially enhance the standing of the police in terms of mutual agreed upon areas that may be again retention, it may be salaries, it might be other kinds of things that it would be useful for the administration, for this council, and the police force to agree on that would basically enhance their ability to do their work. Okay. I think I understood the original motion had to do with money. Is that correct? So I'm not exactly sure what kind of MOUs you're talking about other than financial. Mayor, I believe the intention in my making this amendment is to open up the dialogue between the administration and the FOP so that we get some idea of whether it's money or other things that would be helpful. I mean, if we open up the bargaining agreement, that has many things in it besides money. I would say I would leave it open to the administration and the FOP to determine what, if anything, could be brought back to this council that would enhance their work. Okay, thank you. May I have a question on the motion? I'm finished, if you want to give me the chair back. You may have the chair back. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. That was cute. Thank you, Mayor. I tend to agree with Vice Mayor Kay, and I think what you're hearing, and I really respect, it comes from millennia, your intent, because I think what we are all doing is talking to people who are the officers in our districts, who are frustrated, who don't have as much time and people to do the work that we're all asking them to do, and the feeling of ideas are being maybe put forward, and they're kind of put forward without a real end game, meaning they're sent out there, they're sent to me, they're sent to you, or send to others in the administration and feel like, how do we get follow-up? How do we know if they're getting anywhere? We're not seeing traction, and the frustration is still present. The need is still present. So I think the intent is to how do we move that forward, which I think is what the vice mayor is saying. Let's get everybody at the table, and let's ask to do that so that we're not opening the contract, but we are getting what we need, which is the two sides talking about mutually beneficial solutions that are going to be financial. They're going to have a financial component to them, they can't not. But we can't talk about the numbers until we actually have agreement on what we're doing. And I think this may, and I don't want to make your intent for you, but it feels like you're sharing that I'm part of the frustration that we're all hearing. And they want movement. They want something to be done. And I think we feel that way. And so I sympathize with that intent. Thank you. I just wanted to know if they were financial from your perspective which i think you just answered that yeah uh who else would like to speak who has not council member james brown thank you thank you mayor and thank you council member maloney for bringing it forward and vice mayor kay for your amendment i think the intent i agree with the intent of the motion to do everything that we can do even if it's financial for the mou to do whether it's financial to address public safety concerns one of the biggest concerns i have is you know we're we still have a lot of city employees and in some divisions that are understaffed that are waiting on the results of a compensation study that we haven't addressed so to continue making decisions about compensation to other departments in other divisions of our city without addressing all of it because when we first did the the additional pays and the additional compensation we did it in in in conversation about this compensation study that was coming back and then i you know i heard from another division last week that is in public safety that is their numbers are are down and their their quality of life and their work conditions aren't optimal and they're interested in seeing what we can do to try to address that situation so I think this is probably the best step going forward having a conversation about what MOUs that we can do more immediately to impact and address the public safety concerns regarding our police department but also letting all the other employees that are out there working in not optimal conditions know that we're still conscious and waiting for that information to come back so we can make decisions about that going forward. So I will support the amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else who hasn't spoken yet to the amendment? To the amendment? Council Member Maloney. Vice Mayor, I appreciate it, Chair. My question goes to it, if we start talking salaries on the MOU, I'm just trying to realize is that legal? I'm not a lawyer. I mean, we have a collective bargain. We leave that inside with the administration and the collective bargain. When you start a MOU, I just want to be sure we're doing things legal, and that's why I thought it would be more legal by opening up the collective bargain, and having you all talk that way with the MOU in there, I can't see what kind of teeth it brings. I mean, if it brings the teeth that you're saying, I support the negotiation talking to them, but I need to know with an MOA, because it really comes down to the salaries, with the surplus that we've been having here, and I want to help Chief Weathers. and I mean my heart goes out to all these police officers that are short and 911 and corrections and fire. They've done a tremendous job, but we have, I mean, the public sees it every day, and I'm just wondering, does the MOU put the teeth that I'm fine with it if we can do it, but if you can tell me that it's better, it's okay to do that, I'd be interested in hearing that. But if it's not, I mean, let me know. Councilmember, legally an MOU is just as effective as the actual contract itself. The MOU is essentially amending the contract, and that happens all the time. As long as it goes through the proper processes, it is effective and enforceable. Including salaries and things like that, you can do the MOU at the same time? I want to be sure that we can amend the contract to address salaries. generally speaking though I want to be sure we can amend salaries without having to open the whole contract up I think that you can amend it but I want to be absolutely certain about that but if you amend a contract and that amendment goes through all of the proper processes it is it is an enforceable contract itself okay that's what I wanted to be sure I support this. If it gets going better, because it sounds like I may not have my vote for opening up, but at least I've accomplished something to make sure that the mayor and the police can do an MOU and get together and fix these problems, then sit here and not support the collective bargain. I support the amendment. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now we have the main motion on the floor as amended. Is there anyone who wishes to speak to it? All right, I'll ask the vice mayor to take the chair one more time. Well, maybe not just one. You never know. Okay, yes, mayor. Thank you. I just want to help all of you understand and put this in perspective, okay? When we bargain, both sides bargain in good faith. Both sides. And what happened this last time is that I feel like everyone did a really good job. and we were able to bring really positive changes. And I have no doubt that everyone up here, everyone is a supporter of our public safety all through and through. This last time was a little different because our society is different. And what happened is, for your perspective, when we closed our bargaining and had our salaries set, many of the entities around us then knew what they had to do. And I won't name them. You can probably figure out who they are. They all raised their salaries after we were locked in. And that was their right, certainly, but it made it very difficult for us. Now, when you talk about a surplus, our surplus, which I believe you're probably referring to the fund balance, which will be coming up either late October or early November, is one-time money. It is not recurring money. If we talk about salaries for anyone, they have to be from recurring funds, not one-time money. And that's why the council passed the recommended MOU for supplements, one-time supplement. And you remember you passed an MOU to do that. And, of course, you'll have that opportunity again with fund balance when it comes up. But I think we've got to all remember we all kind of want to get to the same place, but the perspective and what we do is what is important because your fund balance will not be recurring money. So in order to have recurring monies, we would either raise revenue, as the vice mayor likes to call it revenue enhancement or cut the budget so i just want to put those things in your mind for perspective thank you very much thank you you may have the chair back thank you does anyone else wish to speak to the motion i want to speak may i appreciate you giving that information and I understand it's a one-time money, but also I look at the net profit, I look at revenue, some of the money has come up a little bit, and it's done well. When I talk to some of your accountants, they're going, wow, I didn't know we had this much money coming in. On top of you, the surplus was just a one-time money from the federal government, but we also had some increase in our revenue, and I always question that. Every year, every time I sit there, and then they come up, We don't know how we're doing so good, and sometimes they say the revenue's coming in better than we thought. So that's why when I say we've got a surplus, I'm looking at the whole picture of new revenues that are coming in all the time. And I understand the one-time money, but I'm looking more from the revenue side that has been pretty good from what we've seen. And some people think it may continue. continue. And this is the time that I think we need to open up the discussion and that was the Vice Mayor's recommendation. And we had today for another example, I'm on the economic development process, we had a group come in here, they were trying to hire eight people but they had to cut it down because they couldn't find anybody at that salary so they ended up increasing their salary. Still kept the same payroll coming in the So it's not just us. It's everybody's doing that, and that's why we have to go back and do what they're doing. It's looking how we can keep our chief brothers and all those great police guys from losing that 115 to move that number up and also not to find a creative way to keep those 150 here or bring back the retirees. So this is the time to do it. I know everybody thinks it's political. It's not. I personally believe the numbers that I'm hearing, the people I hear out on the street, you all out there every day, we've got to fix this problem. And to me, that's why I brought this up today. I will support the mayor's, I mean, the vice mayor's motion. Also, I will support my motion, too, that we should open up the collection board. Thank you. Council Member Kloiber. I just wanted to make one final comment because I know it's been mentioned a few times. It may have gotten lost. There are things that we can agree to that will actually save us money and improve our retention and recruitment, along with everything else. So I do want you guys in the administration to please look at those with the contract buybacks and with other retirement options that could actually save us money and improve retention and recruitment. So thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right. Let's take the vote. All those in favor of the motion as amended, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Okay. Next on council report is Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I got it here. I just want to remind everyone that tonight at Tates Creek High School, we're going to have a forum on gun violence, community forum on gun violence. and I just wanted to invite everyone that can make it. If you haven't seen the new Tates Creek High School, then it will give you a chance to look at that also. But they've been gracious to give us the space, and one Lexington and our district 8 will be putting that on. We hope we'll have some good questions and hopefully some answers. So anybody and everybody is invited. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to remind everyone that this Saturday, September the 10th, we will start Parks and Rec's Marvelous Movies program, if you want to say that. Saturday we'll be showing Black Panther. The event starts at 7 30 with the movie at dusk so around 8 30 or so. There'll be food trucks and activities for the kids so everybody wants to come out and watch Black Panther we'll be there. Hope to see you there. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else have a council report? All right. Next is the Mayor's Report. If I could have a motion please. Thank you. Vice Mayor seconds. Any questions? All right. All those in favor say aye. There were at least two votes. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next up is public comment for issues not on the agenda. Dottie Bean and you know how this works if you'll state your name and your council district and you'll have three minutes welcome. Dottie Bean 1364 Deer Lake Circle Council District 8. At the work session last week when we when you all were talking about the American Rescue Project the project manager reported on some capital grant awards to nonprofits in the lexington area the information was contained in the packet it was stated at the meeting that the grants amounted to a budgeted six million dollars and that the project manager had asked what was asking for four hundred and eighteen thousand dollars in additional money for four to five other agencies that there had been a they really felt like those agencies had some winning projects and they did not want to leave them out of these funds okay so they had requested four hundred and eighteen thousand to be added to the six million for a total of six million four hundred and eighteen thousand dollars which council then approved I would like to know why the in the packet the figures on individual awards add up up to almost $8,418,000, or $2 million more than was stated. Also, there are 23 projects, not 40, listed on the final tally. If there are additional projects, I would like to have a list of them, and also the amounts of the awards, as well as an explanation to the public as to why and how this mistake was made and how it will be corrected. It may be federal money, but it is still taxpayer money. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak? Has anyone else signed up? Okay, thank you very much. And now it's time for a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.