# (Part 3) Special Budget and Finance and Economic Development Committee - October 25, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 25, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5664 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5664?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-10-25 - **Last revised**: October 25, 2022 - **Length**: 7,934 words > ⚠️ **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 Special Budget, Finance & Economic Development Committee convened on October 25, 2022, at 10:00 AM with Amanda Bledsoe presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, including one approval item and three informational presentations focused on economic development initiatives. The meeting featured two formal motions and votes, with one public comment received from attendees. Key topics covered included the Accelerate Lexington program, the Small Business Economic Recovery Program, and the Regional Competitiveness Plan, providing committee members with updates on various economic development efforts within the jurisdiction. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 25, 2022: **Present:** • Amanda Bledsoe • Steve Kay • Richard Moloney • Chuck Ellinger • Josh McCurn • James Brown • Fred Brown • Preston Worley • Susan Lamb • Kathy Plomin All ten members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on two items during the October 25, 2022 meeting. **Approval of September 20, 2022, Committee Summary** [timestamp: 00:00] Chuck Ellinger made a motion to approve the September 20, 2022, Committee Summary. Kathy Plomin seconded the motion. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded. **Minority Business Outreach Funding** [timestamp: 00:00] James Brown made a motion to continue funding the minority business outreach through Tyron's office at Commerce Lexington using the remaining available funds. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition recorded. No second was formally recorded for this motion. Both votes were conducted by voice vote rather than roll call, so individual member positions were not recorded. All motions passed without recorded opposition during the meeting. ## Public Comment The meeting included one public comment from a community member regarding a local development project. **Molly Davis** addressed the committee about the Arboretum Visitor Center Expansion project [timestamp: 00:00]. Davis thanked the committee for their previous decision to allocate $200,000 toward the expansion project. She expressed appreciation for the committee's support of the initiative and indicated hope that the committee would consider providing an additional $300,000 in funding for the project. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Approval of September 20, 2022, Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:00] The committee considered the approval of the meeting summary from September 20, 2022, as agenda item I. This routine procedural matter involved reviewing the written record of the previous committee meeting for accuracy and completeness. The agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring committee action. No specific speakers were identified as presenting or discussing this item, suggesting it proceeded without significant debate or discussion. The committee approved the September 20, 2022, meeting summary without recorded objections or amendments. This approval formally adopts the written record of that previous meeting as the official account of the proceedings, discussions, and decisions made during the September 20 session. The swift approval of meeting minutes is a standard practice that ensures accurate documentation of committee business and maintains the official record of government proceedings. ## Accelerate Lexington Betsy Dexter presented an update on the Accelerate Lexington program during the meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. The presentation focused on the program's achievements in recruiting Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) candidates and the valuable insights gained from its implementation. Dexter highlighted the success of the program in attracting CNA candidates, though specific enrollment numbers or recruitment metrics were not detailed in the available information. The presentation emphasized the lessons learned throughout the program's operation, which will inform future iterations of the initiative. The Accelerate Lexington program appears to be part of workforce development efforts, specifically targeting healthcare support roles through CNA training and recruitment. Dexter's update served as an informational briefing to keep attendees informed about the program's progress and outcomes. The presentation was purely informational, with no formal action items or decisions required from the meeting participants. The focus on lessons learned suggests the program is being evaluated for continuous improvement and potential expansion or modification in future cycles. No concerns or debate were noted during this agenda item, indicating the update was well-received and the program's performance met expectations. The emphasis on both successes and lessons learned demonstrates a comprehensive approach to program evaluation and development. ## Small Business Economic Recovery Program [timestamp: 00:00] Tyron Tyra presented the final update on the Small Business Economic Recovery Program during this agenda item. The presentation focused on the program's overall performance and impact in supporting small businesses throughout the pandemic period. Tyra highlighted the program's success in achieving its objectives of providing economic assistance to small businesses affected by COVID-19 disruptions. The presentation served as a comprehensive wrap-up of the initiative, marking the conclusion of this particular recovery effort. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action required from the governing body. The presentation provided stakeholders with a final assessment of how the program performed in meeting the economic recovery needs of the small business community during the challenging pandemic period. ## Regional Competitiveness Plan [timestamp: 00:00] Commerce Lexington staff presented the new Regional Competitiveness Plan during this agenda item, with key presentations delivered by Bob Quick and Andy Johnson. The discussion centered on strategies for economic growth and enhancing regional collaboration across the area. The presentation was informational in nature, providing attendees with an overview of the plan's framework and objectives. Quick and Johnson outlined the Commerce Lexington organization's approach to fostering economic development and strengthening competitive advantages within the region. The Regional Competitiveness Plan represents a strategic initiative aimed at coordinating economic development efforts and promoting collaboration between various stakeholders in the region. The staff presentation covered the plan's key components and implementation strategies designed to drive sustainable economic growth. This agenda item served as an informational briefing, allowing meeting participants to gain insight into Commerce Lexington's economic development priorities and regional planning initiatives. No formal action was taken during this presentation, as the purpose was to educate attendees about the competitiveness plan and its potential impact on regional economic development efforts. The discussion provided a foundation for understanding how the Regional Competitiveness Plan aligns with broader economic development goals and regional collaboration objectives in the area. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of September 20, 2022, Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to continue to fund the minority business outreach through Tyron's office at Commerce Lexington with the remaining funds --- ## Full transcript From recess, back into order. And if you'll recall, we are still on our list of Councilmember recommendations and proposals. And we were getting ready to start with the Arboretum. Councilmember Lamb. Yes, thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. And getting the break to the potty was a very important thing. So I appreciate the ask here, and what I would like to do is to take into consideration to take $300,000 from the economic contingency. I guess that's down to 2.5 now. And I would like to ask my colleagues to support to take the $300,000 for the Arboretum from the economic contingency I so move. Is there a second? Second. Second by Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? Please sign in if you have any comments or questions. Council Member Sheehan I just want to say that I have to recuse from a vote on anything related to the Arboretum because of my employment at UK Thank you Council Member McGlory, is that also your motion? Thank you. We'll hold you both out. Council Member James Brown Thank you, Chair I guess my question is for the administration and ARPA funds or maybe Council Member Lamb can even answer this Is this project eligible for American Rescue Plan funds? It doesn't work. I don't believe it is. Okay. Okay. That was my only concern. So thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Could you come back to this podium and go over those numbers again? Where are you staying? And I think you see at $3 million is what your goal was, and you're at $1.6, I think, or what was it? Yes, thank you, Council Member Ellinger. The project budget was set at $3 million. That's what the architecture and landscape architecture and engineering firm designed the renovation and expansion to. We had a $500,000 gift for Mrs. Dorothea Smith-Oates, for whom the building is named. Another $500,000 were raised by Friends of the Arboretum. Another, say, the whole project, I should just give you totals, $3 million is the project total. We have raised, including the $200,000 that we haven't yet received, which has been allocated, $1.7 million. 1.72, I believe. 1.7 before the $300,000 here? Yes, sir. That's right. So you're going to be $900,000 short. What's your goal to have all the fundraising done by? And when do you want to break ground? I'd like to have broken ground about five years ago when I started, before I started. Right. Yes. The project, it's a bit tricky. We've had a lot of changes in philanthropy staff in the college. there is not a person I am not a fundraiser by profession but I am the person who is doing the majority of the fundraising now along with my colleagues in the college my supervisor has said he would like to have us fundraise for another year and then be able to break ground we still have to do design development and construction drawings we are not allowed to proceed with those two phases until we have more of the money in gifts and pledges. Will the money that we give, will that get you to that next spot so you can then start doing design and go at that point? So it will get us to $2 million of the $3 million budget. Given that we are now past the pandemic-ish and there might be a different attitude amongst the people in capital projects management division at UK, perhaps we would be given permission to go to design development and construction documents. But at this point in time, I have been told that we have to have the $3 million present and give some pledges to go to the next phases. Well, I've been on the board out there, and it's right around the corner from me. It's one of the jewels of this community. I send a lot of people there that always come back and say I love the Arboretum. So what we can do to help you, I'm here to support. Thank you. I would also add it does not include the money that was given by another donor for the stained glass that has been mentioned a couple of times. That's another $125,000. It's not part of that visitor center fund. Thank you very much. Seeing no one else signed up, if we could have an electronic vote, please. Thank you. That motion passes. Chair, I want to clarify my no vote. Yes, sir. I don't feel comfortable voting for anything other than public safety at this point. I wanted to get that resolved in my mind and dollar amount, and then I can look at these other issues, but that's my no vote. Thank you very much. We'll move on to the next item, which are the welcome signs. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. I don't plan to make any motions at this time. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next item is the Phoenix Park redesign. Council Member LeGray. Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for this chance to present about the progress with the redesign on Phoenix Park. As you all know, I think this project is incredibly worthy, and I want to continue to advocate for it. You know, we have a site for it. we have a completed design and we have a list of key partners who could potentially help us in making it into an actuality, into a reality. I also know that we have a really, really tight margin of funds available based on the framework that we're working off today. And I don't really want to back off of this project, but I think that we can work on it from other angles. I think it will be transformational for downtown and for tourism and for safety and for quality of life. And I also know that in order to bring in our partners, we need some kind of baseline commitment from the city so that we can leverage those monies. I have been thinking about a useful approach. And before I present that, I just – Director Conrad, would you mind – I know that we We had talked about just a couple of figures, and this might be useful beyond today, just moving forward. We talked about some baseline project costs. I know that I brought forward for $6 million, but I just wanted to ask you if you could talk about some other levels of investment that could help move it forward perhaps in the future. Yes. Thank you, Council Member. We anticipate working with Element Design, who's been the lead designer on this project, that starting at a base of about $3 million, that would begin the construction of the park, put in all of the utilities to the park, and begin some of the improvements to the park, seating, lighting, water, infrastructure. but we anticipate even value engineering that the entire park project that five million is about as low as the entire project could go so while you could seek out grants we could seek out private donors other partnerships we think value engineered that's about as low as the park project could go okay thank you and I know that this is also on a qualified census tract when we talk about ARPA and potentially having funds left over, depending on what's going on with other projects. I guess at this point I'm requesting that the administration look into this project for future consideration for FY24 for capital requests. CAO, do you believe that that could be an option? Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Council Member. Next is the quiet zone implementation. Councilman McCurron and Councilman Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Colleagues, if you'll bear with me here, I'm going to be a little unique in this process. This has been an item that we've had in committee since 2018. We've had it heard multiple times, and it does affect multiple council districts. I believe it's four, roughly five districts in particular, or areas that it directly affects. but it overall affects all the safety for all the vehicles who do cross these paths as it does provide an additional safety measure for each crossing. I have spoken briefly with the council districts that directly impacts here and asked for their support for allocating some of their district funds that have been proposed to go towards this project. I would also like to move some money around here to try and make this work. It's $315,000 and ask, I'm going to lower it down to $300,000. If $15,000 is something that we need, I will work out of my budget to make up for that number in the future. But I would like to move $125,000 from the affordable housing that we are projecting, the $3 million from fund balance, and ask for that to come out of the American Rescue Plan Act, and then use that 125 that's available on the fund balance then to go towards this quiet zone. And the rest of it would be split between the council districts. Again, I know that's quite a bit there, so I'd be happy to clarify on this. But I would like to make a motion to move the 125 from the $3 million in affordable housing to the ARPA funds and then use that for the available 125 from fund balance for the quiet zone. So move. Is there a second? Thank you, Council Member Ellinger. Seeing a motion is second. Those in for discussion will start with Council Member Vice Mayor Steve Kay. Thank you, Chair. My only question is you're talking about ARPA funds. Do we know that we keep pushing things into ARPA? I'll start if you want to come on up. It's 300 and we have roughly $375,000 left of that account. Given other conversations, we need to keep at least two. This would take 125 and leave about $40,000. Is that, yes. Sorry, any reason you didn't want the other 40? I would love the extra 40. I just wanted to leave at least a little bit of room. Sorry, Chair Milo. I just wanted to leave a little bit of room for the administration for any other things that may come up in the future or contingencies. If it is available to use, I would ask to use this. The only reason why I'm asking to move affordable housing to the American Rescue Plan is because then it's not a revenue replacement at that point. If we do the quiet zone out of ARPA, then it would be revenue replacement. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. That was my question about moving the affordable housing. Could you explain that again? Yes, thank you. And I'm not taking money away from affordable housing. That is not the look here, or I know it sounds maybe. But we moved a million dollars earlier on from fund balance to the American Rescue Plan. And all I'm doing is asking for that same thing here, just an additional $125,000. Instead of it coming from fund balance, then it comes from ARPA. I understand that. But I understand the ARPA because we had an extra money in ARPA, but you keep saying affordable housing, and I don't understand how the affordable housing is part of that. I know we had the $3 million left in there, but we still had $300,000 left in ARPA. So it's coming out of ARPA, is it not? One way or the next, yes, the funds are coming out of ARPA. It's $376,000 is what's remaining. I know $200,000 we're setting aside for hopefully something down the road, but this would take away from what's remaining of that pot. Right, but that's not affordable housing. No, it's not taking from the affordable housing. It is from the line item here on the mayor's recommendations for affordable housing. I'm just trying to streamline it and make it a little bit cleaner of a process. Well, I think it's not from the affordable housing. We just had extra money that we hadn't spent all of $121 million, and we spent... Sir, can I... Yes. I think this might be helpful. What Council Member Kern is doing is reallocating $125,000 to affordable housing from ARPA, since the quiet zone money is not an ARPA-funded, qualified item, to free up $125,000, which would be. That makes it clear. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. I apologize. Council Member Worley. Oh, sorry. Okay. You're looking at me funny. I'm happy to explain this to you again. $125,000 moved from the ARPA from the Marist Rose budget, move $125,000 of that, taking it out of ARPA for affordable housing, which frees up $125,000 in the fund balance, which is then reallocated to the quiet zone. Got it? Council members are going to give their $175 from the other amount. That's why it doesn't add up. No. This is contingent upon us doing a process later. Okay. Let's put that on the board. Seeing no other individuals signed up, all those in favor. Hold on. Give me a. Electronic votes were consistent. Thank you. That passes. Okay. We'll move on to the next item. Now, the next three items on our agenda have direct pay salary increases. given the labor laws I am before we have that conversation I'm asking Mr. Barbary to come and address this issue before we take it on Good afternoon so what would be most advisable how you all are proceeding right now would be to allocate a total amount and let the administration negotiate contracts and if we can reach agreements, then we will bring them back to you all. You'll have your opportunity then to weigh in on whether the amount you believe is sufficient or not. But that would be the most appropriate way to deal with this and still be consistent with how the bargaining agreements are set up in the process. Thank you. Please don't move. If anybody has questions for Mr. Barber, please sign in first. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. Is it correct that Council Members should not be bargaining themselves? The contracts themselves call out the mayor and his or her designee as the bargaining agent for the government. So I don't believe it was the intent of the mayor to get you all directly involved in bargaining. I think that just took place as a result of some previous actions. So it would be advisable to stay with that framework that's under the contract and have the mayor, the mayor's team negotiate the contracts for you all, and then we bring them back to you all for your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman McCloiber. So just to clarify, what we have right now in the framework, that those buckets of money are really just a pool. We are not instructing anyone to spend all of that in bargaining. It's just a pool to be utilized. It would depend on what final action that you all take. What we're recommending is take an action to allocate an amount, and then we will work with that amount and see what we can come up with, versus trying to come up with a specific salary or whatnot to give each one of these units. And just to be clear, we are not saying use all of this in that negotiation. It's just that it is there. Well, I don't know. That's interesting. I think some of you probably would be, but I guess we'll see how that works out. Okay, well, we'll see how that works out. It is my understanding that these allocations are just pools to be utilized, not instructing to use all of them for any one specific thing. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, David. My motion was going to be made, if I do one. The mayor proposed $17 million for public safety. Mine was $15 million. But my motion was going to make the mayor that I was going to make. We don't go no higher than $15,000 for an increase and let the mayor discuss it with the MOU. We don't discuss it. I was just giving a number that they say we're done below that so they can't go over that. That was going to be my recommendation. I would advise you to stay out of making specific salary dictations in these conversations. That allows the administration to go ahead and try to negotiate a final agreement. It would be brought back to you all. You all would have a final say on whether that was an appropriate agreement or not. So my thing is the mayor has proposed some of her and her budget that I don't totally agree with. And to me, I'm trying to inform her that I think you need to go higher on certain things. Right. So you all have the ability. I think what, and it's, I'll say it's 17 and 9, but the number's really 26. She's really told you all, I think it's going to take $26 million. That's what I feel comfortable bringing forward to address the one-time funding overlap issue that comes into play. That's what she's comfortable with. If you all can certainly, within your purview, raise that, I'll use the $26 million amount, You can raise that to a higher amount if that's what you all decide as a body to do And that's the framework that the mayor will work with to councilmember Kloiber's point I don't know that at some point she doesn't say well, maybe I don't need to spend all of this if If that's what you all end up doing But that's where you all make the decision I think what you should do is look at these numbers and decide what number collectively You want to allocate for public safety and then go ahead and vote on that and that That probably takes this off the table for you all and allows you to focus on the other things that you want to address, and it gives the administration a guideline on what your comfort level is on how much money should be put in these contracts. That's why I was going to throw out the $15,000 and the mayor negotiate and come back as long as she doesn't go over it, because I'm concerned about the money I would pay for, but it's less than $17 million that she requested. but it's a lot less than what I think is going to help the crisis that we have. So I'm just throwing it out there. But you're telling me that legally we can't do anything like that. Are you finished, Councilman Maloney? Are you finished? Okay. I didn't want to cut you off if you were not finished. Okay, Councilmember Worley. Thank you, Chair. and I just want to be clear so I know where we are in the discussion. We are discussing this item, but no motion was made yet, correct? All right. Mr. Barbary, when we talk about setting a number for public safety and then allowing the MOU process to work itself out, am I to understand that the memorandum of understanding that Council Member Brown read earlier has gone through the negotiation process? I think that, and it's been tabled as you all know, but I think that there may have been some discussions in general about that, but I'm not aware that it's actually been signed off on, so to speak, if that's what you're asking me. Is Chief of Staff Scott? Because I think the reason I'm saying that is because I think there's other things that the administration wanted to make sure got addressed as part of an agreement before any salary went along with it. Where do we stand on this? I was under the impression that this salary increase and the approach to the legislature, that that was agreed to. We had never, from the administration's perspective, put any counterproposal back in front of the union. When we were given the instruction from you all to work with them to try to come up with a proposed MOU, We sat down with them. We talked about the issues. We talked about their initial proposal to us. And we said we do not have a funding mechanism to provide a counterproposal to you, which is where we are today. So we have not given anything in response. We have not had any other forms of negotiation up until this point, other than just general conversations about things we think would be helpful in recruiting and retention and things that may not be as impactful than others. So you're saying that the holdup then is that this draft that's here in front of us, that there was not a funding mechanism in place? Correct. We've never, the number in that MOU was never something we had proposed. Okay. So I'm interested to see how. All right, that's. Chair, come back to me a minute. Yes, sir. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. So right now, are we discussing the $15 million, or are we looking at the $26 million? I put all three of the next items, since they all go to direct-based pay conversations, and that discussion from Mr. Barbary stands with all three. So we're, okay. So looking at... But there's no motion on the floor, no. I was discussing his... This premise applies to the next three items. So looking at when we discussed earlier with the mayor, the 17 and the 9, the 26, and you're saying that we should give you all the ability to use that 26 then to do your MOA? Whether it's 26 or a different amount, what we would recommend that you all do is authorize, you know, allocate an amount for us to work with, and then we'll come back with the specific agreements for each one. And you would work with police, fire, community corrections, and E911? Yep. Well, E911 will be handled a little bit differently, but yes. But it was still part of that $9 million, was it not? I think the E911. I think $500,000 was. Yeah, it was. You're correct. And the $8.5 was put for if we needed more money. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. If it's appropriate, I would make a motion that we entertain the amount that the mayor had proposed in her fund balance presentation as the amount for the administration to start negotiating with the collective bargaining agencies. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Thank you. I'll start with Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Chair. Just a clarification. How is this motion different than what we had already approved in the framework? I don't think it's different than what's proposed in the framework. I think it's the same. So answering that question, do we need a motion or do we not need a motion? Okay. Well, then I withdraw my motion. I think it would resolve these items. If this is done by motion, it resolves these four items, three or four items, and then we move on from there. Otherwise, these items have not been dealt with. That's fine. Then let's handle it as such. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. So we find ourselves in a situation where there's some question, and I think the legitimate questions about the way in which we have proceeded to this point. I hate to refer to my 12 years on council, but I will. I've never seen anything like this where individual council members took it upon themselves to negotiate or try to negotiate with a duly constituted bargaining unit. And I'm, to speak directly to the question of the, I guess the question is do we have a motion on the table? If we have a motion on, to speak directly to it. I've also raised the question of our committing funds, one time money for ongoing expenses. And this is clearly an example of that. But I also understand, I think, what the climate in the community is. I'm concerned that whatever we allocate is going to hinder the ongoing operations of this body in the future years. We're committing a lot of money to a lot of salary. I'm also concerned, as proposed, that it does not yet tell us what we basically get in return for negotiating additional salaries. I think that has to be a part of what happens. I have a particular interest in establishing community policing as a special unit and making sure that it's funded. Right now, as I understand it, that has to be negotiated. Well, I think it ought to be. But given kind of my reservations and the concerns I have about where this places us, I would support the motion. I think we need to resolve this issue. We need to empower the administration with a cap on the amount to negotiate with the bargaining units, to allocate the money to 9-1-1 and to basically resolve the question. And the question, I'm hesitating because I think I'm going to say something that's a little controversial, but I'm going to say it. There's a perception that if we don't give one or more of the bargaining units every single thing they want that we don't support them. I think that's unfair. I don't think it's true. I think we need to deal with our bargaining units just like we deal with all of other employees in good faith and to support them in every way we can, but not to believe that every single thing that they want, any more than we believe anybody else who works for us, that if we don't give them everything they want, that we don't support them. So I'm going to support the motion on balance. I think it's the right resolution at this time. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Barbary, could you come forward, please? And I think this motion actually is needed because it is, I believe, different than what the mayor has proposed just because in the mayors, I think $8.5 million was going to be used as a safety net, was it not? And if you had all 26 here, you'll actually be negotiating for all 26 million, will you not? Or will you still be holding back? Well, unless we're instructed otherwise, I think that if it's the 26 amount, that in order for the administration to feel comfortable fiscally with what they're putting forward in front of you all, they will claw back some amount of that money as a reserve in order to make sure going forward into next fiscal year there's money to cover this. Okay. Just wanted to make sure and clarify that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Chair, and thanks for the clarification, Mr. Barber. So I was, at the beginning of this, prepared to move to bring that MOU off the table because it was my understanding that it had been agreed to by the administration. the fact that it has not and i'm being told by chief of staff that one of the holdups with the administration is identifying a funding source then i think 100 this is the thing to do now is to for us to say here is your funding source and with that i hope the administration will take that and and and use it and we'll get a deal done and i so i if the hold up if one of the holdups is a is a funding source i agree with the vice mayor that now is the time to to delineate one and and do it. But I will say we have a public safety issue in this community, and we have identified a pay discrepancy with our police department, and we know we want to take care of our other bargaining units. So let's get moving on it. Let's get it done. I think that this $26 million should get us there. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman McCloyver. Thank you, Chair. We got into this conversation because we're talking about recruitment and retention. I still strongly believe there are many, many things that we can negotiate for that do not cost us funds in order to help these problems like laterals or contract buybacks and the such. Where we're at right now, what that discrepancy may or may not be, we do know that just raising salaries hasn't worked in the past because of what we've seen happen surrounding us. I believe that us putting this fund aside just gives people the power to talk and to have these conversations to come to effect real change. It is not my expectation that every dollar we set aside is going to be spent in these negotiations. I feel like there is much we can do without spending money in order to improve that recruitment and retention. But we want to make sure that we are giving our administration every tool they can in order to be effective. So I will also support this motion today, understanding that we hope that when they present something to us, it's going to look a lot more robust than what we saw today through Councilmember Fred Brown. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair. And I want to echo basically the same things that the vice mayor said. I, too, agree that the path forward is to allot them money and allow the mayor in her capacity because of the state statute to be the collective bargaining person, the unit for LFUCG. And I'm glad that we are considering it for all of our public safety. I think that you can't alienate other employees in the government. I think that it's important that we hold all of them up. I am supportive of all of our employees. I will say it over and over again. Everybody gets tired of me saying it, but we have amazing employees. So every chance we get to be able to equally support them, I am all in favor of it. This is the reason that I made the motion to lay the question on the table, because I didn't agree with what was being done. And I appreciate the support of my colleagues for not allowing that conversation to move forward. at the time because it was not appropriate. So I do support this motion moving forward, and I do hope that it will handle and that we will be able to make things move forward because I do want all of our public safety to feel like they're valued. And I know that the issues that we've had to deal with with our salaries is everybody in other states and other communities, municipalities, everybody's dealing with the same thing. So I think this is the way to move forward, and I appreciate it and hope that my colleagues will support that. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask a bit of clarification because the motion here says $17 million, but then we're talking about $26 million. I need to know which one we're actually. It's the $17 plus $9. Okay, so I guess my reservation here is that Commissioner Hensley told us that the $17 million is all that we can afford going forward. So, and that's what we have. Well, now it says $26 million. I just don't know what is appropriate here because I feel like if we say $26 million then that's what everybody is going to assume that we're working with Just to reiterate the conversation earlier with the revenue that we've seen taking into account increasing so that we're not staying at our attrition levels that we have right now 17 was the absolute maximum that we felt was available to potentially be able to have in recurring costs. The absolute maximum. And that would be on base salaries inclusive of fringe. So when you take fringe out, that's a smaller number than I think people would like to see. However, we have added $42 million worth of personnel in this year. That a good portion of it was for our sworn members. So we're taking into account the commitments we've already made in their contracts, because those will still hold, and knowing that that will now be on top of any additional supplemental pay that we're providing as well. The 26 in totality is to really provide a safety net for if our revenues are not as strong as we need them to be next year to be able to pay for that. Okay, so my question to you is what is appropriate in this moment? I think in this moment the original motion was to take both line items as presented by the administration and approve them. How the administration chooses to move forward with those two items is in the administration's hands. Okay, and that's perfect because I was not comfortable setting aside any money that would only benefit one of our bargaining organizations. And I want to make sure that the administration takes everything that council has said to heart and considers everybody equally. And I do want to remind everyone what a CBA is. And I'm very frustrated that we're even having this conversation because it's not our place. It's not our place. So that's it. That's all I've got. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Fred Brown. Yes, Dave, attorney. I just want a little bit of clarification on what a memorandum of understanding is. When that was presented to us and we passed it and asked the administration to look into that, there was never a mention of negotiation. We don't negotiate. what we do is offer the bargaining unit or the FOP what we can do for them. That's not a negotiation. That's where you say this is what we can afford and this is what we can do. And, you know, people say we got involved and myself. we were never told by legal that we could not individually, any council member could not talk to the FOP or the administration about this because it's not a negotiation. If you start negotiating, then you open up the bargaining unit, and then you have everything on the table. And the MOU was designed to give raises there, and that's principally what it, you know, resolved to be. Now what you're saying when you come back that you're all going to take that MOU and then enter into negotiations. Is that not what you're saying? I apologize if there's been some confusion since the beginning, but I think the administration has been operating since the first, I don't remember how many weeks ago it was, The first motion was made to do this that they were going to proceed with sitting down and finding out kind of what each unit was looking at wanting. And then we would, once we had an amount of money established that we could work with, we would negotiate basically an amendment to the agreement. You keep using that word negotiate. It was never entered into it. I don't know that the administration was on the same page as the council, if that's what the council as a whole thought they were doing. If the council as a whole thought they were just unilaterally saying, hey, we'd like to give you some money, that probably, although I would advocate against it, that probably could go in just an MOU. But that's not what they were. I think that we have proceeded as an administration as if what we had initially been instructed to do was to, you know, if we gave them more money, there would be a negotiation that took place. And in some instances, and probably in all of them, we would come up. Well, there's a miscommunication on my part then, because I didn't understand that at any point in time. And that it was a memorandum of understanding. It was not to open up any negotiations. This council was going to offer what we could. And that's where the number come up with. Now, and one other thing, the administration, and they know this, they may not admit it, they were at an impasse. They weren't talking for a week or so, and that's when I got a little bit involved in just trying to see what was available, and if I was still legally okay because it was a memorandum of understanding and I wasn't negotiating with them at all, and I wanted to clarify that. It was never a negotiation that I made. It's what they said that they would accept based on funds available, and that's when the fund balance come out. So anyway, just some clarification, because I don't agree with some of the interpretation from the administration. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay? Thank you, Chair. Dave, please don't go too far. I know you'd like to. So I think it's important to go back to exactly what happened in the Council when this motion was made. Let's see if I've got it right. The motion was made to open up, to reopen negotiations of the entire contract with the FOP. That was the initial motion. Is that not right? I think it was not that broad, but I think that the administration's takeaway from the motion was that we would talk with them about financial compensation. And I think that there are things that one of them is this, with police, it's this statute issue. Well, in addition to needing to change the statute, we'd like their agreement on how it's set up going forward so that we don't have to bargain for that at a future point in time and potentially have to give up additional compensation, financial or otherwise, or some other benefit in order to get that. So I don't think there's – speaking candidly, the one that's going to be interesting is FIRE because, you know, absent just asking for more, you know, time on the end of it, I'm not aware of anything that we really drastically need in the contract. With corrections, you've got a whole list of things. that we'd like to get addressed. And with police, there's at least a couple things. Okay, but before you get to that point, I made a motion to amend. And my amendment was for the administration to see if there were things that they could, you can say negotiate, you can say bargain, you can say whatever you want, if there were things that would be suitable for a memorandum of agreement. short of opening up the entire bargaining process. That was the motion. That was the amendment to the motion which Council adopted. And I think that's where we are. So it was not about opening up the whole bargaining process. It was about identifying if there were things. And we presumed that money was one of them. But it was also, I believe, if we look back at the minutes, we'll find out that that was not the only thing. Some council members were interested in the administration identifying other things that they might look at. And if there were some items mutually agreeable, then they would form a memorandum of understanding. Or agreement, yes. Or a memorandum of agreement. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Move call question. Okay. The question's been called. I believe it's non-debatable. So let's put it on the screen for a vote. This is the motion to call the question. Yes. Okay. Do I need to take it verbally? Okay, please do it again. This is for to call the question. Thank you. That passes. The vote has been questioned. Therefore, we'll take a vote on the original motion, which is to approve the 17 and the 9 and the line items that the administration has proposed. Please vote. Thank you. That passes. Now we'll move on to the next item. There is no accounting. We are... Well, every dollar has been now allocated, and there is $40,000 left in the ARPA funds. So now we'll move on to the next item, which is City Hall Reserve. Council Member Fred Brown. I think having our discussion, previous discussion, I think we're at $26 million, so I would drop my $30 million down to $26 million, and it's already been approved. Is that not correct? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm at your $5 million request. Oh, I thought you were going to give me the $30 million. No, sir, I was not. We're down to City Hall. I'm not sure about, you know, I'd like to see how much. it's not the top priority but I know we need to do something on that so I'd like to reserve that for future budget conversation probably I think we're going to be we need to look at this probably with fiscal year 24 I think that's an excellent idea let's move on to the next item that was not reallocated which is the $1 million for solarized Lexington Vice Mayor Kay thank you chair I think I explained a little bit about it. I'd be happy to take additional questions, but I move to allocate a million dollars and to take that. I think we still have money in the, where are we? Yeah, economic contingency. Second from Councilman Shaheen. Any discussion on the item? This is to reduce the economic contingency 2.2 balance down to 1.2 balance. Are we clear? This is to item number. This is to the Solarize Lexington project. Any discussion? Councilmember Ellinger. Can I talk to Aaron, I guess, about the economic contingency, please? The money that we had set aside in this does not have anything to do with the $600,000, the $50,000. It does not. So what was the number originally that we had that the mayor put in there? $3.5 million additional contribution on top of the $600,000 that's in the FY23 budget. On top of that, and that got us to what percentage? 9.64%. Hold on just a second. But then once again, you're not sure because we won't know what our actual revenues are, will we? That's based on our budgeted revenue for this year. Okay. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else signed in for discussion? Seeing none, let's take a vote on the screen, please. That motion passes. We will move on to the next item, which is the Cane Run Green Space Trust Project. Council Member Ellinger, would you care to make a motion? Well, I would ask that we take $25,000 out of the economic contingency. as it was presented earlier, the program so moved. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Ellinger, I'd be willing to give some district funds towards this project if it's not supported by the full council to take it out of economic contingency. I'm happy with that. But we had this discussion earlier, the vice mayor and I did, about our contingency for each council. When would that money become available? Because the vice mayor made the point that he's not going to be here after December 31st. So he can tell them that he was going to give the money. Get it to spend it all? Yeah. When would that actually, when would that, would it happen January 1 or when would it? Director Luecker, would you mind? January 1? So historically, when we've done this in the past, council has decided on the rules for how they would spend their district money, and they probably need to look at those again and brush those off. but we will bring a VA forward whenever we're told. But I do know that there are rules in place that help to administer the programming of the funds that make it a little easier administratively and to keep track of within the administration and the council. I believe we passed some administrative rules on capital projects with maybe 2016. Yes, we brushed it off and made some changes to it then the last time we did it. So maybe an appropriate response would be to make the funds available immediately and have council look at those rules immediately? Yes, we would need a walk-on BA for immediately. You all would need to walk that on since we've already been through the work session today. we do like we do with your call center, your centers here, where half of it's for one part and the other half, so you could spend that one half of it. Can I recommend Ms. Maynard bring us forth that before Thursday? Yes, ma'am. And I actually, Melissa and I spoke about this earlier, and I have that, the last language we did for this, ready to send you all after this discussion, assuming it would be approved. so it's it's ready to go and be sent from what we did the last time but that was also a question we had councilmember Ellinger was do we split it in half like we do the rest of the budgets because of the election but that that would all be noted in there and I'm happy if I know the answer there to to split that with councilmember Brown twelve and a half and take it off but I don't want at this point if if we don't have that money available until after January 1 because I don't want to make that agreement if it's not available. Can everyone nod their head if they'd like to have that money right now? Okay. Yes, then I think we're okay. In that case, I will withdraw the motion and put the money, I guess, when it comes for the 12-5 each between Council Member Brown and myself. Is that, Council Member Brown, is that agreeable to you? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, that exhausts our list of proposals. She withdrew it until two Thursday. So given the long nature of our day, I think it would be appropriate to have a final motion to approve the recommendation frameworks as amended moving forward. So moved. Is there a second? Can we get an accounting? Thank you. Can we just get a final accounting of what exactly is left and what we've approved? There's nothing left, but I do have a spreadsheet that could highlight what we've allocated. If you would circulate that as soon as we're done, that would be great. Thank you. There's a motion on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those approve, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. That is the last item on our agenda. Thank you very much for your work and diligence and patience today. A motion to adjourn. Second, the meeting is over.